The Concept Of Legal Interest And The Burden Of Proof In The Negative Determination Case
The Concept of Legal Interest:
Article 114 of the CCP No. 6100, which entered into force on 01.10.2011, recognizes legal interest as a condition of litigation. A person whose rights are violated may apply to the court as a plaintiff and request legal protection. However, the plaintiff must have an interest worthy of protection in order to request legal protection. It is not sufficient for the plaintiff to have the right to sue in order to request legal protection from the court. The plaintiff must also have a legal interest in filing a lawsuit. As a rule, legal interest is presumed in constructive actions and actions for performance. The plaintiff is not obliged to declare and prove the existence of legal interest in such actions. However, in case of doubt, the existence of legal interest shall be examined. In determination actions, in the meantime, the plaintiff must have a legal interest in the filing of the lawsuit. The plaintiff must declare, explain and, if necessary, prove that he/she has a legal interest in filing a negative declaration action1 . If the plaintiff fails to prove that he/she has a legal interest in filing a negative declaration lawsuit, the lawsuit should be dismissed on the grounds of lack of legal interest, which is a condition of the lawsuit.
II. Conditions of Proof in Negative Determination Lawsuit
If the plaintiff debtor claims that the debt subject to the lawsuit does not exist and asks the court to determine that such a receivable does not exist, then the defendant creditor is obliged to prove the existence of the receivable. If the plaintiff debtor claims that the receivable is invalid due to one of the conditions that cripple the will (mistake, fraud, persuasion), then he is obliged to prove his claim. If the debtor claims that the debt, the existence of which he accepts, has been terminated for a reason such as payment, the burden of proof will naturally fall on him. It can be seen that, as a rule, the defendant/creditor has the burden of proving the existence of the legal relationship and the creditor has to prove the existence of the legal relationship (debt). If the debtor accepts the existence of a legal relationship, but claims that this legal relationship is different from the one shown in the promissory note, then the burden of proof that the legal relationship is the one claimed by the debtor falls on the plaintiff debtor. This is because the plaintiff debtor, although accepting the existence of the promissory note, does not claim that it is not based on a legal relationship, but that it is based on another legal relationship; basically, it accepts the existence of a legal relationship.
“Court of Cassation 20th HD. , 2019/2494 E. , 2019/3652 K. , T. 27.05.2019 ;”
”The case is a negative declaration case filed pursuant to Article 72 of the EBL, and in a negative declaration case, except for exceptional cases such as being dependent on a bill of exchange, it should be evaluated by taking into account that the burden of proof is on the defendant. 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, the existence of which he acknowledges, has fallen for a reason such as payment, then the burden of proof will naturally fall on him.
It is seen that, as a rule, in a negative declaration case, the defendant/creditor has the burden of proving the existence of the legal relationship 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 pursue and the basis of the debt, and taking into account that the defendant must first prove that the defendant has the authority to pursue and that the debt subject to the enforcement proceedings has arisen with the evidence to be submitted, the evidence to be submitted by the parties should be collected and a decision should be made according to the result to be formed, while it is not correct to decide to dismiss the case as written with the wrong assessment that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.”
As a result, as a rule, the defendant creditor has the burden of proof in the negative determination case in accordance with Article 72 of the EBL and must prove the existence of the debt. However, if the debt has become invalid due to special reasons, that is, due to circumstances that cripple the will, the burden of proof shifts and the plaintiff debtor has to prove the existence of this situation.
Malen Registration in the Bill of Exchange – Negative Determination Case – Burden of Proof
The said record in the bill of exchange expresses that the bill is issued against a delivered good. In other words, the drawer (the person issuing the bill) says that he has received the goods and that he is fulfilling his obligation to pay the price for the goods with this bill.
Supreme Court
General Assembly of Civil Chambers
Esas No: 2013/2402
“Case Law Text”
“At the end of the trial held due to the “negative determination” case between the parties; Denizli 3rd Civil Court of Peace on 01.02.2012 and E: 2010/1442,
Upon the review of the decision numbered K:2012/92 requested by the attorneys of the parties, with the decision of the 19th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 29.01.2013 and numbered E:2012/14275, K:2013/1601
(…The attorney for the plaintiffs stated that their clients bought goods amounting to 3.377,75-TL from the defendant company as a gift to their relative N..A…, who is not a plaintiff, in return for an invoice dated 06.04.2010, and they also liked some items for themselves and agreed to buy goods amounting to 6.000-TL in total from the defendant, and the 6. 000-TL to the defendant, the goods received as a gift were delivered to N..A… on 06.04.2010, however, the clients gave up buying the goods they wanted to buy for themselves and notified the defendant, even though the promissory note held by the defendant is worth 6.000-TL, the debts of the clients are 3. 377,75-TL and they did not take back the promissory note relying on his statement that he would return the promissory note when the installments of this debt were over, that his clients paid 1.900-TL of their debts arising from the goods they received as a gift to the defendant, that although there was a debt of 1.477,7-TL left, the defendant took a precautionary attachment decision based on the 6.000-TL promissory note as if there was a balance debt of 4.100-TL and Denizli 7th. Execution Directorate’s 2010/9116 enforcement proceeding file, stating that his clients only owe 1.477,75-TL due to the promissory note and the enforcement proceeding, and requested and sued for the determination that they do not owe the defendant the requested 2.622,25-TL and for a 40% bad faith compensation against the defendant.
The defendant attorney stated that his client sold goods to the plaintiffs against an invoice dated 18.05.2010, that the plaintiffs issued a promissory note dated 18.05.2010 and dated 15.07.2010 for 6.000-TL, that they paid 1.900-TL of the debt, but the remaining 4. 100-TL, that the plaintiffs should prove with written evidence that the payment or return of goods was made in terms of the amount they claim that they are not indebted, that the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs, because there is a “malen” record in the promissory note, that the goods were delivered first and then the promissory note was issued, and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit and a decision for 40% bad faith compensation.
As a result of the trial held by the court, it was decided to determine that the plaintiff’s debt as the main receivable in the follow-up file subject to the lawsuit due to the 6.000-TL promissory note dated 15.07.2010 payment date is 1.477,75-TL (2.622,25-TL debt does not exist), and since it could not be proved that the defendant was malicious, it was decided that there was no place to award malice compensation, and the judgment was appealed by the attorneys of both parties.
The case is related to the determination of the lack of indebtedness due to the bill of exchange, and there is a “malen” record in the bill. This situation constitutes a presumption that the goods have been delivered and the contrary must be proved in writing by the claimant. The court erred in the determination of the burden of proof and it was not deemed correct to establish a written judgment on the grounds that the defendant creditor could not prove that the goods were delivered….”
In the bond subject to the lawsuit, the plaintiff … is the drawer and the defendant … is the beneficiary, and there is a “malen” record as the reason for issuance.
The bill is a bill containing an independent debt assertion, and in case there is a price record in the bill, the burden of proof belongs to the party who defends the contrary of the record. In the concrete case, in the face of the declarations of both parties that the bill is not in exchange for goods, it is obligatory to accept that the bill is charged by both parties, and in this case, it should be accepted that the general rule that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff bill debtor in accordance with Article 6 of the TMK and Article 191 of the CCP will not be displaced and the plaintiff must prove that the bill is free of charge.
Pursuant to the rule of proof by deed against deed, the plaintiff-debtor must prove by written evidence that the bond subject to the proceeding is free of charge. This cannot be understood from the text of the promissory note subject to the proceedings, and the plaintiffs have not submitted any written evidence to the file to legally prove this claim.
Since the plaintiffs are the drawer and guarantor of the promissory note and the defendant is the beneficiary, the plaintiff, who is a party to the promissory note, is not a third party and must prove his claim of forfeiture not by witnesses but by written evidence as stipulated by the procedure. Since the bond subject to the lawsuit contains the phrase “malen”, it is admitted by the debtor that the goods were delivered in such a bond. The creditor has no obligation to prove delivery. In other words, the debtor has the burden of proving that the goods were not delivered.
In this case, it must be accepted that the bond subject to the dispute and the proceedings is legally valid. In that case, since the plaintiff-debtor claims that the bond is free of charge, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs must prove this claim by written evidence.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.