Atıf Sayısı
4
Görüntüleme
89
İndirme
8
Garanti ile kefalet sözleşmeleri kişisel teminat sözleşmelerinin bir türüdür. Bu sözleşmenin tarafı olan alacaklı, borç ifa edilmediği takdirde güvence verene başvurma imkânı kazanır. Kefalet sözleşmesi Türk Borçlar Kanunu’nda (TBK) açıkça düzenlenmişken, garanti sözleşmesi ancak TBK’nın 128. maddesi ve içtihatlar ışığında yorumlanabilmektedir. Uygulamada ve teoride bu iki sözleşmenin ayrımını yapmak her zaman kolay olmamıştır. “Aslilik- fer’ilik”, “yorum” ve “taraf iradeleri” gibi ölçütler bu hususta yol göstericidir. Tüm bunların yanında yasa koyucu, TBK’nın 603. maddesiyle kefalet sözleşmesinin kefili koruyucu yanlarının bertaraf edilmesi çabasının da önüne geçmek istemiştir. Bu mecburiyet özellikle bankacılık faaliyetlerinde, borca güvence veren gerçek kişilerin uğradıkları mağduriyetten doğmuştur. Daha önce yargı kararlarıyla yapılan yorum, bu şekilde kanuni zemine oturtulmuştur.
Guarantee and failure contracts are a kind of personal insurance contracts. The recipient, which is a party to this contract, will gain the possibility of applying to the guarantor if the debt is not fulfilled. The bankruptcy agreement is clearly regulated in the Turkish Debt Act (TBK), but the guarantee agreement can only be interpreted in the light of Article 128 of the TBK and drinks. In practice and in theory, it was not always easy to distinguish between these two contracts. Measures such as "Aslility-Fer'ism", "I am" and "the party's will" are guiding in this regard. In addition to all this, the lawmaker has also sought to prevent the efforts to remove the defective protective sides of the failure agreement by Article 603 of the TBK. This obligation, especially in banking activities, arises from the victims of real debt guarantees. The judgment of the judgment in the past has been placed on the ground of law.
Surety and indemnity contracts are a kind of personel assurance contracts. In case of nonperformance of the debt, the creditor, as the party of this contract obtains the opportunity to apply to assurance giving party. Whilst surety contract is regulated obviously in Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), indemnity contracts shall just be interpreted in the light of Art. 128 of TBK and the judicial precedents. In practice and theory, drawing a certain line between this type of contracts is not so easy every time. The criteria like “principal-secondary”, “interpretation” and “the wills of the parties” are leading in this case. In addition to these, the legislator has aimed to counteract the endeavor of eliminating the surety contract’s sides that protect the surety via Art. 603. This compulsion has arised from the mischief of the individuals who gave assurance in banking business. Thus, this interpretation made by judicial precedents, has been seated on the statutory ground.
Alan : Hukuk
Dergi Türü : Ulusal
Makale Detay 
Atıf Yapanlar
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
