Concept of Legal Benefit:
In Article 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure numbered 6100, which entered into force on 01.10.2011, legal interest was accepted as a condition of action. A person whose right has been violated can apply to the court as a plaintiff and request legal protection. However , in order for the plaintiff to claim legal protection , there must be a benefit worthy of protection . The fact that the plaintiff has the right to sue is not sufficient to request legal protection from the court. The person suing must also have a legal interest in filing a lawsuit. As a rule, it is assumed that there is legal interest in construction cases and performance cases. The plaintiff is not obliged to declare and prove that he has a legal interest in such cases . However , in case of doubt , whether there is a legal interest or not is the subject of examination . In the case of determination, meanwhile, in the case of negative clearance, the plaintiff must have a legal interest in opening the case. The plaintiff must declare, explain and, if necessary, prove that he has a legal interest in filing a negative clearance action1. If the plaintiff cannot prove that he has a legal interest in filing a negative declaratory action, the lawsuit should be rejected on the grounds that there is no legal benefit, which is the condition of the lawsuit.
II. Proof Conditions in Negative Decision Case
If the plaintiff debtor claims that the debt subject to the lawsuit does not exist and asks the court to determine that such a claim does not exist , the defendant creditor is obliged to prove the existence of the claim . If the plaintiff debtor claims that the receivable is invalid due to one of the circumstances that crippled the will (error, fraud, reprimand), then he is obliged to prove his claim. If the debtor claims that the debt that he accepts has ended for a reason such as payment, then naturally the burden of proof will fall on him. It is seen that, as a rule, the burden of proving the existence of the legal relationship is on the defendant/creditor in the negative clearance case, and the creditor has to prove the existence of the legal relationship (debt). If the debtor has accepted the existence of a legal relationship, but has claimed that this legal relationship is different from the one seen in the deed, this time, the burden of proving that the legal relationship is the one he claims falls on the plaintiff debtor. Because the plaintiff debtor, while accepting the existence of the deed, argues that it is not based on a legal relationship, but on another legal relationship; basically accepts the existence of a legal relationship.
“Supreme Court 20. HD. , 2019/2494 E. , 2019/3652 K. , T. 27.05.2019 ;”
“The case should be evaluated considering that the burden of proof is on the defendant, except for exceptional cases such as a negative declaratory action filed pursuant to Article 72 of the EBL, and in a negative declaratory case, such as being dependent on a bill of exchange. If the debtor denies the existence of the debt, in these cases the burden of proof falls on the creditor, even though he is the defendant. If the debtor claims that the debt, which he accepts to exist, has fallen for a reason such as payment, then naturally the burden of proof will fall on him.
It is seen that, as a rule, the burden of proving the existence of the legal relationship is on the defendant/creditor, and the creditor has to prove the existence of the legal relationship (debt). For these reasons, the court; Considering that the plaintiff has objection to the defendant/creditor’s authority to prosecute and to the essence of the debt, first of all, the defendant has the authority to prosecute and that the debt subject to the enforcement proceedings has to be proven with the evidence to be presented. It was not considered correct to dismiss the case in this way.
As a result, in accordance with article 72 of the EBL, the burden of proof in a negative clearance case is on the defendant as a rule, and he has to prove the existence of the debt. However, if the debt has become invalid due to special reasons, that is, due to the circumstances that crippled the will, the burden of proof has been changed and the plaintiff debtor has to prove the existence of this situation.
Malen Registration in the Bill of Exchange – Negative Decision Case – Burden of Proof
The aforementioned record in the bill of exchange states that the bill is issued against a delivered good. In other words ; The drawer (the person who issued the bond) says that I have received the goods and I am fulfilling my debt to pay the price for the goods with this bond.
Supreme Court
General Assembly of Law
Base No: 2013/2402
“Justice Text”
At the end of the trial due to the “negative determination” case between the parties; E:2010/1442, dated 01.02.2012 given by the Denizli 3rd Civil Court of Peace regarding the acceptance of the case,
Upon the request of the representatives of the parties to examine the decision numbered K:2012/92, with the decision dated 29.01.2013 and numbered E:2012/14275, K:2013/1601 of the 19th Law Department of the Court of Cassation;
(…The attorney of the plaintiffs said that their clients received goods worth 3,377,75-TL against the invoice dated 06.04.2010 as a gift to N..A., who are relatives of their clients from the defendant company, and that they also liked some items for themselves and a total of 6.000-TL from the defendant.
that they have agreed to buy goods amounting to the amount of money and that they have given the deed of 6.000-TL to the defendant, the goods received as gifts were delivered to N..A. Even though the bill in the hands of the party is 6.000-TL, the debts of their clients are 3.377.75-TL, which is the cost of the goods sold. they paid, although there was a debt of 1,477,7-TL remaining, the defendant took a precautionary lien decision as if there was a debt of 4,100-TL based on the 6.000-TL deed, and Denizli 7th Enforcement Directorate started a follow-up from the 2010/9116 follow-up file, stating that they only have debts of 1,477,75-TL due to the promissory note and follow-up, and the requested 2,622.25-TL He demanded and sued from the first part to determine that he has no debts to the defendant and to decide on 40% bad faith compensation against the defendant.
The defendant’s attorney stated that his client sold goods to the plaintiffs in return for an invoice dated 18.05.2010, and accordingly, the plaintiffs issued a 6,000-TL deed with the issue date of 18.05.2010 and the payment date of 15.07.2010, paid 1,900-TL of the debt, but the remaining 4.100-TL. Noting that they started enforcement proceedings due to non-payment of the . He requested that the case be dismissed and that 40% indemnity be awarded.
As a result of the trial made by the court, it was determined that the plaintiff’s debt was 1,477,75-TL (that there was no 2,622.25-TL debt) due to the 6.000-TL deed dated 15.07.2010 in the follow-up file, which was the subject of the case, It was decided that there was no room for judgment, and the decision was appealed by the attorneys of both parties.
The case is about the determination that there is no debt due to the bill of exchange, and there is a “male” record in the bill. This situation constitutes a presumption that the goods have been delivered and the contrary must be proven in writing by the claimant. It was not considered correct to establish a written judgment on the grounds that the defendant creditor could not prove that the goods were delivered by making an error in the determination of the burden of proof by the court.
In the bond that is the subject of the lawsuit, the plaintiff is the drawer, the defendant is the beneficiary, and there is a “malely” record as the reason for creation.
The bill is a promissory note containing an independent acknowledgment of debt, and if there is a price record in the bill, the burden of proof lies with the party defending the opposite of the record. In the concrete case, it is obligatory to accept that the bill has been forfeited by both parties in the face of the declarations of both parties that the bond does not correspond to goods. It must be accepted that the plaintiff must prove that the deed is free of charge.
Pursuant to the rule of proof by promissory note against the deed, the plaintiff-debtor must prove with written evidence that the prosecuted bond is free of charge. This could not be understood from the text of the deed (bond) subject to the follow-up, and the plaintiffs did not submit any written evidence to the file to prove this claim legally. Because, since the plaintiffs are the drawer and the surety of the bill (bond) and the defendant has the beneficiary, since the plaintiff, who is the party of the bill, is not a third person, he must prove the claim of free of charge with written evidence, not with a witness, but with written evidence as stipulated by the procedure. Since there is the phrase “malely” on the bill that is the subject of the case, the debtor has acknowledged that the goods have been received in such a bill. The creditor has no obligation to prove that he has delivered. Contrary to the written confession, in other words, the debtor is obliged to prove that the goods were not delivered.
In this case , it must be accepted that the bond subject to dispute and follow – up is legally valid . Then , the burden of proof rests on the plaintiffs , since the plaintiff-borrower claims that the bond is free of charge. Plaintiffs must prove this claim with written evidence .