[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n\n\n<\/p>\n
\n\n\n
[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
T.C.<\/p>\n
YARGITAY<\/p>\n
13. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
ESAS NO : 2020\/373 <\/p>\n
KARAR NO : 2020\/4575 <\/p>\n
T \u00dc R K M \u0130 L L E T \u0130 A D I N A<\/p>\n
Y A R G I T A Y \u0130 L A M I<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 : .<\/p>\n
TAR\u0130H\u0130 : 20\/01\/2015<\/p>\n
NUMARASI : .<\/p>\n
DAVACI : .<\/p>\n
DAVALILAR : 1<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonunda ilamda yaz\u0131l\u0131 nedenlerden dolay\u0131 davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne k\u0131smen reddine y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taraflar avukat\u0131nca temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine dosya incelendi gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc.<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131, daval\u0131lardan …………………………… vekili olarak di\u011fer daval\u0131lar aleyhine \u0130stanbul 18. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin …………………………… E. say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin iptali ve tapu kayd\u0131ndaki \u015ferhin terkini, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz de\u011feri tutar\u0131ndaki tazminat\u0131n tahsili talebiyle dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, vekalet \u00fccreti olarak daval\u0131 \u015eebnem ……………………… pay\u0131na d\u00fc\u015fen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz hissesinin % 20\u2019sinin kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yarg\u0131lama devam ederken taraflar\u0131n sulh olduklar\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin 12.02.2013 tarihli feragatname ile davadan feragat etti\u011fini ve davan\u0131n feragat nedeniyle reddine karar verildi\u011fini, 17.05.2013 tarihli ihtarname ile vekillik g\u00f6revinden istifa etti\u011fini, Avukatl\u0131k Kanunu 165. maddesi uyar\u0131nca taraflar\u0131n vekalet \u00fccretinden m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen sorumlu olduklar\u0131n\u0131, sulh olunan de\u011ferin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f bedelinden daval\u0131 \u015eebnem T\u00fcreray’\u0131n hissesine d\u00fc\u015fen 5.399.763,75 TL oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek akdi vekalet \u00fccreti nedeniyle \u015fimdilik 10.000,00 TL, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf vekalet \u00fccreti nedeniyle \u015fimdilik 10.000,00 TL ve 5.000,00 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n feragat tarihinden i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsilini istemi\u015f; bilahare talebini \u0131slah etmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
Daval\u0131lar, davan\u0131n reddini dilemi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
Mahkemece, manevi tazminat y\u00f6n\u00fcnden a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddine, maddi tazminat y\u00f6n\u00fcnden a\u00e7\u0131lan ve \u0131slah edilen davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile 134.555,00 TL\u2019nin 28.03.2013 tarihiden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsiline karar verilmi\u015f; h\u00fck\u00fcm, davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n
1-Dava, Avukatl\u0131k Kanunu 165. maddesine dayal\u0131 akdi ve kar\u015f\u0131 yan vekalet \u00fccretinin tahsili istemine ili\u015fkin olup, daval\u0131lar ……………………………… ile davac\u0131 aras\u0131nda avukatl\u0131k s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 m\u00fcvekkil-vekil ili\u015fkisi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r<\/p>\n
Hemen belirtilmelidir ki; kural olarak sonradan y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren yasa h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ve \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Kararlar\u0131n\u0131n kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak (usul\u00fc m\u00fcktesep hak) ilkesinin 28.6.1960 tarihli, 21\/9 Say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131 gere\u011fince istisnai niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi kesin h\u00fck\u00fcm halini almam\u0131\u015f eldeki davalarda da g\u00f6zetilmesi ve uygulanmas\u0131 gerekece\u011fi tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131zd\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihat\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme B\u00fcy\u00fck Genel Kurulu taraf\u0131ndan 05.10.2018 tarihinde 2017\/6 esas 2018\/9 karar say\u0131l\u0131 ilamla ” \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 birle\u015ftirmenin konusu, Avukatl\u0131k Kanununun 165. maddesinde yer alan \u00fccret dolas\u0131yla m\u00fcteselsil sorumluluk hallerinden olan sulh veya her ne suretle olursa olsun taraflar aras\u0131nda anla\u015fma ile sonu\u00e7lanan ve takipsiz b\u0131rak\u0131lan i\u015flerde kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n avukat\u0131 lehine her iki taraf\u0131n m\u00fcteselsil olarak \u00f6denmesinden sorumlu olaca\u011f\u0131 avukatl\u0131k \u00fccreti kapsam\u0131na avukat ile i\u015f sahibi aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan \u00fccret s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine g\u00f6re avukata \u00f6denmesi gereken akdi vekalet \u00fccretinin girip girmedi\u011fi hususudur…. Avukatl\u0131k bir kamu hizmeti olmakla birlikte \u00fccret kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda m\u00fcvekkiline hukuksal yard\u0131m hizmeti sunan avukat ile i\u015f sahibi\/m\u00fcvekkili aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fki bir \u00f6zel hukuk ili\u015fkisidir… \u00d6zel hukukta, bir bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkisinden do\u011fan alacak hakk\u0131 da nisbi hak niteli\u011findedir. B\u00f6yle olunca, alacak hakk\u0131 ancak o bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkisi nedeniyle bor\u00e7lu olan ki\u015fi ya da ki\u015filere kar\u015f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilir, yarg\u0131sal kararlarda ve doktrinde bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkilerinin nisbili\u011fi ilkesi denilen bu ilke uyar\u0131nca s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler kural olarak yaln\u0131zca s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin taraflar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan h\u00fck\u00fcm ve sonu\u00e7 do\u011fururlar…. Akdi vekalet \u00fccretinin i\u015f sahibi ile hasm\u0131n m\u00fcteselsil sorumlulu\u011fu kapsam\u0131nda bulundu\u011funun kabul edilmesi hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fi ilkesini zedeleyecektir. Ayr\u0131ca vekalet \u00fccreti avukat\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 hukuki yard\u0131m\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olan bir mebla\u011f veya de\u011feri ifade etti\u011fi halde avukattan hi\u00e7bir hukuki yard\u0131m almayan hasm\u0131n, kar\u015f\u0131 yan\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden do\u011fan vekalet \u00fccreti nedeniyle onun avukat\u0131 lehine m\u00fcteselsilen sorumlu tutulmas\u0131, avukatl\u0131k \u00fccretinin mahiyet ve amac\u0131na da uygun de\u011fildir. Taraflar\u0131n aralar\u0131ndaki dava ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sulh ile sonu\u00e7land\u0131rmalar\u0131 her\u015feyden \u00f6nce dava a\u00e7\u0131lmakla bozulan toplumsal bar\u0131\u015f ve huzurun yeniden tesis edilmesini sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi taraflar\u0131n bir an \u00f6nce hak ve alacaklar\u0131na kavu\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 da temin etmektedir. Nitekim 01.10.2011 tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren HMK’n\u0131n 140\/2. maddesinde hakimin taraflar\u0131 sulhe davet edece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenerek sulh te\u015fvik edilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6yle olunca, usul hukuku bak\u0131m\u0131ndan bu kadar \u00f6nemli bir m\u00fcessesenin \u00f6n\u00fcne s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin taraf\u0131 olmayan ki\u015finin akdi vekalet \u00fccretinden sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 \u015feklindeki bir engelin konulmas\u0131 da do\u011fru olmayacakt\u0131r…. Hal b\u00f6yle olunca, Avukatl\u0131k Kanunu’ nun 165. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen “\u00fccret dolas\u0131yla m\u00fcteselsil sorumluluk” hallerinden olan “sulh veya her ne suretle olursa olsun taraflar aras\u0131nda anla\u015fmayla sonu\u00e7lanan ve takipsiz b\u0131rak\u0131lan i\u015flerde” kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n avukat\u0131 lehine her iki taraf\u0131n m\u00fcteselsil olarak \u00f6denmesinden sorumlu olaca\u011f\u0131 avukatl\u0131k \u00fccreti kapsam\u0131na avukat ile i\u015f sahibi aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan \u00fccret s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine g\u00f6re avukata \u00f6denmesi gereken “akdi vekalet \u00fccretinin” dahil olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonu\u00e7 ve kanaatine var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r” \u015feklinde karar verilmi\u015f olup, somut olaya ili\u015fkin s\u00f6z konusu i\u00e7tihad\u0131 birle\u015ftirme karar\u0131na g\u00f6re, daval\u0131lar………………………………………….. ile …………………………… davac\u0131n\u0131n hak etti\u011fi akdi vekalet \u00fccretinden sorumlu olmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gerekir. Bu durumda mahkemece, yukar\u0131da anlat\u0131lan \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131na g\u00f6re de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131larak has\u0131l olacak sonuca g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis edilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup, bozma nedenidir. <\/p>\n
2-Bozma nedenine g\u00f6re davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131lar \u015e\u00fckr\u00fc…………….. ile B\u00fcnyamin………………..temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine \u015fimdilik gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7: Yukar\u0131da (1) nolu bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle temyiz olunan h\u00fckm\u00fcn BOZULMASINA, (2) nolu bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenle davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131lar \u015e\u00fckr\u00fc Kudret Karak\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 ile B\u00fcnyamin Dal\u2019\u0131n temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine \u015fimdilik yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan 27,70 TL harc\u0131n davac\u0131ya, 3.447,86 TL harc\u0131n daval\u0131-\u015e\u00fckr\u00fc Kudret Karak\u0131l\u0131\u00e7’a, 1.150,00 TL harc\u0131n daval\u0131-………………….., 27,70 TL harc\u0131n daval\u0131-\u015eebnem T\u00fcreray’a iadesine, HUMK\u2019nun 440\/I maddesi uyar\u0131nca tebli\u011fden itibaren 15 g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere, 11\/06\/2020 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
BA\u015eKAN \u00dcYE \u00dcYE \u00dcYE \u00dcYE<\/p>\n
A.S.Erku\u015f A.\u00c7olak \u0130.Kara F.Ta\u015fk\u0131n C.Bal\u0131k\u00e7\u0131<\/p>\n
[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonunda ilamda yaz\u0131l\u0131 nedenlerden dolay\u0131 davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne k\u0131smen reddine y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taraflar avukat\u0131nca temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine dosya incelendi gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":10388,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[52],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10387"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10387"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10387\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10577,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10387\/revisions\/10577"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10388"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}