[ad_1]
The Supreme Court made a decision, as “words fly and write.” The son, who loaned his father € 16,000 to pay SGK his retirement, asked his mother to pay him back when his father died. When he couldn’t get the money, he went to court. The Supreme Court evaluates the appeal of the case; He stated that the reason for sending the money must be written in the explanation section of the bank transfer made for the purpose of lending. It was decided that the detail not written in the description section will be accepted for the purpose of “paying an existing debt”.
The litigation process that may be subject to the film’s script; It began when the father, who had dreamed of retirement for years, asked his son, who was living abroad, to loan him money to pay his insurance premium debt to the Social Security Institution (SGK).
The expatriate son sent the 16 thousand euros requested by his father to his father by bank transfer. The father, who paid the money to SGK, passed away shortly after retiring. The mother, on the other hand, began to receive her husband’s pension. He asked his mother, “Mom, are you going to pay the money I loaned my father?” The son who said, the impact he received
surprised by the answer.
When his mother said that he could not pay the money, the son, who went to the Civil Court of First Instance, pointed out that the money was sent by bank transfer. The defendant mother, meanwhile, stated that there would be no hostility towards her, the transfer was sent to pay the SSI debt of the plaintiff’s father, in this case a lawsuit must be filed against the heirs out of court.
He demanded the dismissal of the case, arguing that the claim that there is no explanation of the remittance on the receipt should be substantiated and, therefore, the claim that the money that is the subject of the case was sent as a debt by the plaintiff. Cut; He declared that the partial acceptance of the case by the defendant at the rate of 1/4 of the part of the inheritance. When the lawyers for both parties appealed the court decision, the 13th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals intervened.
THE SIGNATURE OF THE DEBT MUST BE WRITTEN AT THE AIRPORT
In the decision of the Supreme Court, which indicated that the transfer of money is a means of payment; “Although the court accepts the plaintiff’s request to hear the witness in accordance with HMK 203/1-a; The case was partially accepted because the money in the case was sent to the defendant’s mother through the bank as a loan for the retirement of the hereditary father and the defendant would be liable for the debt at the inheritance rate. The remittance is a means of payment and indicates that an existing debt has been paid. The person sending the money order must prove otherwise. There is no notation on the reason for the transfer of the money in the bank transfer, which the claimant relies on as evidence. Again, the witness whose statement was the basis for the verdict did not make an empirical statement that the money was delivered to the plaintiff and the plaintiff could not prove this claim with any other evidence. In this case, in accordance with Article 6 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) and the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (HMK), the burden of proving that the money was loaned rests with the plaintiff, and since the plaintiff does not can prove the relationship of the loan with no other evidence, the court must decide to dismiss the case. , the decision of partial acceptance in written form is contrary to procedure and law, and is the reason for revocation. ”Statements were made.
