Esas No:2021\/2259<\/strong> 12. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/2259 E. , 2021\/3533 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong> : … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yukar\u0131da tarih ve numaras\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince verilen karar\u0131n m\u00fcddeti i\u00e7inde temyizen tetkiki bor\u00e7lu taraf\u0131ndan istenmesi \u00fczerine bu i\u015fle ilgili dosya daireye g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f olup, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi … taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten ve dosya i\u00e7erisindeki t\u00fcm belgeler okunup incelendikten sonra i\u015fin gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc : T.C.Yarg\u0131tay12. Hukuk Dairesi Esas No:2021\/2259Karar No:2021\/3533K. Tarihi: 12. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/2259 E. , 2021\/3533 K. MAHKEMES\u0130 : … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi Yukar\u0131da tarih ve numaras\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince verilen karar\u0131n m\u00fcddeti i\u00e7inde temyizen tetkiki bor\u00e7lu taraf\u0131ndan istenmesi \u00fczerine bu i\u015fle ilgili dosya daireye g\u00f6nderilmi\u015f olup, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi … taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10362,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[63],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11074"}],"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\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11074"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11074\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11075,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11074\/revisions\/11075"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10362"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Karar No:2021\/3533<\/strong>
K. Tarihi:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bor\u00e7lu taraf\u0131ndan icra mahkemesine yap\u0131lan ba\u015fvuruda; 18\/09\/2017 <\/strong>g\u00fcn\u00fc yap\u0131lan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz ihalesinde sair nedenlerle birlikte alacakl\u0131n\u0131n \u0130\u0130K<\/strong>‘nun 124. maddesindeki ko\u015fullar\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde teminat yat\u0131rmadan ihaleye kat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131yla ihalenin feshi talebinde bulunuldu\u011fu, \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince, ihalede bir usuls\u00fczl\u00fck bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile istemin reddine karar verilerek, bor\u00e7lu aleyhine para cezas\u0131na h\u00fckmedildi\u011fi, bor\u00e7lu taraf\u0131ndan istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine karar verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.
\u0130\u0130K<\/strong>‘nun 124\/3. maddesine g\u00f6re; ‘\u015eartnameye, art\u0131rmaya i\u015ftirak edeceklerin, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tahmin edilen k\u0131ymetinin y\u00fczde yirmisi nispetinde pey ak\u00e7esi veya milli bir bankan\u0131n teminat mektubunu tevdi etmeleri,…..yaz\u0131l\u0131r’.
Haciz koydurmu\u015f alacakl\u0131 bir ki\u015fi ise veya birden fazla ki\u015fi olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen alaca\u011f\u0131 ilk s\u0131rada ise, bu durumda alaca\u011f\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n muhammen bedelinin y\u00fczde yirmisi kadar veya ondan fazla olmas\u0131 halinde art\u0131rmaya kat\u0131labilmek i\u00e7in teminat g\u00f6stermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc de\u011fildir. Ancak, haciz koydurmu\u015f birden fazla alacakl\u0131 varsa ve ihaleye teminats\u0131z girmek isteyen alacakl\u0131n\u0131n alaca\u011f\u0131 ilk s\u0131rada de\u011fil ise, teminat g\u00f6stermekten muaf tutulabilmesi i\u00e7in kendisinden \u00f6nce gelen alacakl\u0131lar\u0131n alacak bedelinin muhammen bedelden \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 sonucu kalan miktar\u0131n, muhammen bedelin %20’sini kar\u015f\u0131lamas\u0131 veya \u00fczerinde olmas\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca \u015fikayet\u00e7inin alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da muhammen bedelin %20’sini kar\u015f\u0131lamas\u0131 gerekir.
Somut olayda, ihaleye dayanak olan takibin, genel haciz yoluyla ilams\u0131z icra takibi oldu\u011fu, ihaleye konu 47 parsel 10 nolu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm numaral\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde alacakl\u0131n\u0131n bu takipten kaynaklanan haczinden \u00f6nce ba\u015fka hacizlerin ve ipote\u011fin bulundu\u011fu, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce alacakl\u0131n\u0131n haczinden \u00f6nceki haciz alacakl\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n alacaklar\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nmadan ihaleye teminats\u0131z kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131na izin verildi\u011fi, ilk derece mahkemesince alacakl\u0131n\u0131n ayn\u0131 zamanda ihale edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde ipote\u011finin bulundu\u011fu, alacakl\u0131n\u0131n her iki alaca\u011f\u0131 toplam\u0131n\u0131n muhammen bedelin % 20’sini a\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile alacakl\u0131n\u0131n ihaleye teminats\u0131z kat\u0131lmas\u0131nda usuls\u00fczl\u00fck bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.
\u00d6te yandan, \u0130\u0130K<\/strong>‘nun 129. maddesinde, artt\u0131rma bedelinin, mal\u0131n tahmin edilen k\u0131ymetinin y\u00fczde ellisini bulmas\u0131 ve sat\u0131\u015f isteyenin alaca\u011f\u0131na r\u00fc\u00e7han\u0131 olan di\u011fer alacaklar o malla temin edilmi\u015fse bu suretle r\u00fc\u00e7han\u0131 olan alacaklar\u0131n mecmuundan fazla olmas\u0131 ve bundan ba\u015fka paraya \u00e7evirme ve paralar\u0131n payla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 masraflar\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi d\u00fczenlemesi yer almaktad\u0131r. Bu husus kamu d\u00fczeninden olup mahkemece resen g\u00f6zetilmelidir.
Alacakl\u0131 banka taraf\u0131ndan icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne g\u00f6nderilen 03\/03\/2017 <\/strong>tarihli yaz\u0131 cevab\u0131nda, ihaleye dayanak ilams\u0131z takip alaca\u011f\u0131 olan 666.362,22 TL<\/strong> ile birlikte ipotekle teminat alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f 538.583,64 TL<\/strong> alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da bulundu\u011fu ve ipotek limiti (1.200.000 TL<\/strong>) alt\u0131nda sat\u0131\u015fa muvafakatlerinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bildirildi\u011fi, 770.000 TL<\/strong> muhammen bedeli olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 04\/07\/2017 tarihli 1. art\u0131rmada 601.000 TL<\/strong>‘ye alaca\u011fa mahsuben alacakl\u0131ya ihale olundu\u011fu ve bu durumda ihale bedelinin, \u015fikayete konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz ile temin edilen ipotek alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
O halde, \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince, alacakl\u0131n\u0131n yukar\u0131da belirtilen maddeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde teminat muafiyetine sahip olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti i\u00e7in, g\u00fcncel alaca\u011f\u0131 ile kendisinden \u00f6nce haczi olan alacakl\u0131lar\u0131n alacak toplam\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilerek, yukar\u0131da belirtilen ilke ve kurallara g\u00f6re sonuca gidilmesi ve istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince esastan reddedilmesi isabetsiz olup, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ile \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.
SONU\u00c7 : Bor\u00e7lunun temyiz isteminin kabul\u00fc ile yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 nedenlerle 5311 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ile de\u011fi\u015fik \u0130\u0130K<\/strong>‘nun 364\/2. maddesinin g\u00f6ndermesiyle uygulanmas\u0131 gereken 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK<\/strong>‘nun 373\/1. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 23. Hukuk Dairesi’nin istinaf talebinin esastan reddine ili\u015fkin 18\/12\/2020 <\/strong>tarih ve 2020\/37 E. – 2020\/2163 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n KALDIRILMASINA<\/strong>, … 9. \u0130cra Hukuk Mahkemesi’nin 21\/02\/2019 <\/strong>tarih, 2017\/469 E. – 2019\/113 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n BOZULMASINA<\/strong>, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan harc\u0131n istek halinde iadesine, dosyan\u0131n \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi’ne, karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin de, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi’ne g\u00f6nderilmesine, 25\/03\/2021 <\/strong>g\u00fcn\u00fcnde oy birli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"