Hacizde istihkak davasında mülkiyet karinesi
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2020
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
ÖZET: Başkasının borcu için malı haczedilen bir kişi açacağı istihkak davası ile malını hacizden kurtarmaya çalışacaktır. Mal, üçüncü kişinin elinde haczedildiğinde ise alacaklı açacağı istihkak davası ile o malın borçluya ait olduğunu ispat edecektir. Bu dava için kanun birtakım karineler öngörmüş ve bu karineleri “İstihkak Davasında Mülkiyet Karinesi” başlıklı İİK m. 97/a’da düzenlemiştir. Denebilir ki bu karineler davanın temel yapısıdır. Alacaklı, borçlu ile üçüncü kişi arasındaki ilişkiye yabancı olduğundan ona ispat kolaylığı sağlamak gerekir. İstihkak davasındaki karinelerin, alacaklıya ispat kolaylığı sağladığı söylenebilir. Diğer yandan bu imkanı üçüncü kişilere de sağlanması menfaat dengesinin gereğidir. Zira takibin tarafı olmayan birini karinelerden yararlandırmamak ve dava açma külfetini ona yığmak haksızlık olur. Karineler bazı yerlerde de başka karinelerle sınırlandırılarak karinenin, aksini ispat alacaklı üzerinde bırakılmıştır. Çalışma başlığı, istihkak davasındaki bu hak karinelerinden kimin, hangi durumda, nasıl yararlanacağı, karinenin aksini ispatın nasıl yerine getirileceği nazara alınarak oluşturulmuştur. Aynı zamanda bu davada sıklıkla bir arada kullanılan organik bağ, tüzel kişilik perdesini kaldırılması, muvazaa, ticaretin usulüne uygun terk edilmemesi ve ticari işletmenin devri gibi bazı kurumların istihkak davasıyla olan ilişkine değinilmiştir.
ABSTRACT: A person whose property is seized for someone else's debt will try to save her property from action of replevin. When the property is seized in the hands of the third party, the creditor will prove that the property belongs to the debtor through an action of replevin. For this lawsuit, the law foresees certain presumptions and regulates it with the title of “Presumption of Ownership in Action of Replevin” in Article 97/a of the Bankruptcy and Enforcement Law. It can be said that these presumptions are the basic structure of the case. Since the creditor is foreign to the relationship between the debtor and the third party, it is necessary to provide her a facility of proof. The presumptions of ownership provide a facility of proof for the creditor in action of replevin. On the other hand, providing this opportunity to third parties is a necessity of the balance of interests. Because it would be unfair not to benefit someone who is not a party to the execution and inflicting the burden of filing a lawsuit. In some places, the presumptions are limited by other presumptions and this way the contrary proof of burden is left on the creditor. The thesis of this study was created by considering who, in which case, how they will benefit from these presumptions of ownership and how to fulfill the contrary burden of proof. In addition, the relationship between the action of replevin and some institutions often used in this lawsuit such as organic bond, lifting the veil of incorporation, collusion, the proper abandonment of trade and alienation of commercial enterprise is covered in this study.
ABSTRACT: A person whose property is seized for someone else's debt will try to save her property from action of replevin. When the property is seized in the hands of the third party, the creditor will prove that the property belongs to the debtor through an action of replevin. For this lawsuit, the law foresees certain presumptions and regulates it with the title of “Presumption of Ownership in Action of Replevin” in Article 97/a of the Bankruptcy and Enforcement Law. It can be said that these presumptions are the basic structure of the case. Since the creditor is foreign to the relationship between the debtor and the third party, it is necessary to provide her a facility of proof. The presumptions of ownership provide a facility of proof for the creditor in action of replevin. On the other hand, providing this opportunity to third parties is a necessity of the balance of interests. Because it would be unfair not to benefit someone who is not a party to the execution and inflicting the burden of filing a lawsuit. In some places, the presumptions are limited by other presumptions and this way the contrary proof of burden is left on the creditor. The thesis of this study was created by considering who, in which case, how they will benefit from these presumptions of ownership and how to fulfill the contrary burden of proof. In addition, the relationship between the action of replevin and some institutions often used in this lawsuit such as organic bond, lifting the veil of incorporation, collusion, the proper abandonment of trade and alienation of commercial enterprise is covered in this study.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Replevin, possession, presumption of ownership, organic bond, burden of proof, İstihkak, elde bulundurma, mülkiyet karinesi, organik bağ, aksini ispat
