[11]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[1] Yarg\u0131tay 23. Hukuk Dairesi 2015\/6969 E. , 2015\/8439 K. karar\u0131ndan al\u0131nt\u0131d\u0131r.<\/strong>
\u201cBK\u2019n\u0131n 213 (TBK 237), MK\u2019n\u0131n 706, Tapu Kanunu\u2019nun 26 ve Noterlik Kanunu\u2019nun 60. madde h\u00fck\u00fcmleri gere\u011fince bizzat tapu memuru huzurunda veya noter arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde yap\u0131lmalar\u0131 ge\u00e7erlik ko\u015fuludur. BK 12.madde (TBK 13.madde) uyar\u0131nca da kanunda \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi d\u00fczenlenen bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesinde de ayn\u0131 \u015fekle uyulmas\u0131nda zorunluluk bulunmaktad\u0131r.
Somut olayda \u2026 Noterli\u011fi’nce d\u00fczenlenen 29.08.2008 tarih ve 13547 yevmiye say\u0131l\u0131 d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine ek olarak d\u00fczenlenen 01.05.2009 tarihli adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmede, as\u0131l s\u00f6zle\u015fmedeki y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ek olarak y\u00fcklenici taraf\u0131ndan bir daire fazladan verilmesi ve kira bedeli ile s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k halinde cezai \u015fart \u00f6denmesi kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ek s\u00f6zle\u015fme kapsam\u0131nda yap\u0131lan bu d\u00fczenlemenin tamamlay\u0131c\u0131 yan h\u00fck\u00fcm niteli\u011finde de\u011fil, ek y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck niteli\u011finde olmas\u0131 nedeniyle, \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131na uyulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yap\u0131lan adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 ek s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fundan bahsedilemez. Bu durumda, ge\u00e7ersiz s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayal\u0131 olarak kirada oturulan evin kira bedeli ve cezai \u015fart da istenemeyecektir.\u201d
[2] Yarg\u0131tay 15. Hukuk Dairesi 2018\/1413 E. , 2018\/2725 K. karar\u0131nda ifade edilmi\u015ftir:<\/strong>
\u201cMahkemece, t\u00fcm arsa sahiplerinin kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131yla yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle ge\u00e7ersiz ve sonradan di\u011fer arsa sahiplerinin muvafakatlar\u0131 sa\u011flanmak ya da ayr\u0131 bir kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131lmak suretiyle ge\u00e7erli hale getirilmeyen s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayal\u0131 olarak s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin taraf\u0131 olan arsa sahibince ge\u00e7ersiz s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayan\u0131larak gecikme tazminat\u0131 (kira bedeli) ve cezai \u015fart istenemeyece\u011finden davan\u0131n t\u00fcmden reddine karar verilmesini sa\u011flamak \u00fczere h\u00fckm\u00fcn bozulmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.\u201d
[3]<\/strong> Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 27.04.2011 tarih ve 2011\/15-118 E.-2011\/234 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 uyar\u0131nca, y\u00fcklenicinin teslimde gecikmesine ra\u011fmen, arsa sahibinin ifadan vazge\u00e7erek cezai \u015fart istemedi\u011fi ve ayr\u0131ca gecikmi\u015f ifa kabul etmi\u015f oldu\u011fundan cezai \u015fart talebinin reddi gerekmektedir.
Yarg\u0131tay 23. Hukuk Dairesi 2012\/4167 E. , 2012\/6964 K. karar\u0131nda ifade edilmi\u015ftir:<\/strong>
Dava, arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uyar\u0131nca davac\u0131 arsa malikine isabet eden dairelerin s\u00f6zle\u015fmede belirlenen s\u00fcrede teslim edilmemesi nedeniyle cezai \u015fart alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tahsili istemine ili\u015fkindir. Taraflar aras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen 24.02.2005 tarihli arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 7. maddesindeki, 6. maddede \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen in\u015faat ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten itibaren 18 ay i\u00e7inde in\u015faat\u0131n projelerine ve detaylar\u0131na uygun olarak bitirilmi\u015f ve oturulmaya haz\u0131r olarak teslim edilece\u011fi h\u00fckm\u00fcne uygun olarak,bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde teslim edilmeme halinde 818 say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanun\u2019unun 158\/2. maddesi ( 6098 Say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun 179\/2. maddesi) uyar\u0131nca ifaya ekli cezai \u015fart kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise de, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki i\u015fin Haziran 2007 tarihinde fiilen teslim edildi\u011fi ve ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcmlerin kullan\u0131lmaya ba\u015fland\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda \u00e7eki\u015fme bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan cezai \u015fart\u0131n iskan al\u0131nmama durumuna da te\u015fmil edilerek y\u00fcklenicinin iskan ruhsat\u0131 almad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle cezai \u015farta h\u00fckmedilmesi do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunun yan\u0131nda, yukar\u0131da de\u011finildi\u011fi \u00fczere taraflarca s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 7. maddesinde h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nan cezai \u015fart, hukuki niteli\u011fi gere\u011fi ifaya ekli cezai \u015fartt\u0131r. Alacakl\u0131n\u0131n bu t\u00fcr bir cezai \u015fart alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 talep edebilmesi i\u00e7in Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun 158\/2. maddesi gere\u011fince teslim s\u0131ras\u0131nda ihtirazi kay\u0131t ileri s\u00fcrmesi gerekmektedir. Somut olayda, davac\u0131n\u0131n teslim s\u0131ras\u0131nda in\u015faat\u0131 ihtirazi kay\u0131tla teslim ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair herhangi bir kan\u0131t bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, esasen davac\u0131n\u0131n cezai \u015fart isteme hakk\u0131 bulundu\u011fu kabul edilse bile a\u00e7\u0131klanan bu nedenle dahi davan\u0131n reddi gerekir.
[4] Yarg\u0131tay 23. Hukuk Dairesi 2013\/5726 E. , 2013\/5982 K. karar\u0131nda ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/strong>
Taraflarca imzalanan 03.04.2007 tarihli arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin \u2026. maddesinde, teslimin isk\u00e2n \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u2026. maddesinde ise, in\u015faat\u0131n fiilen teslimi i\u00e7in \u2026 ayl\u0131k bir teslim s\u00fcresi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, in\u015faat\u0131n s\u00fcresinde teslim edilmemesi halinde daire ba\u015f\u0131na ayl\u0131k \u2026.500,00 TL gecikme cezas\u0131 kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, “\u2026 isk\u00e2n ruhsat\u0131 alma s\u00fcresi, in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bitim tarihinden itibaren \u2026 ayd\u0131r. M\u00fcteahhit in\u015faat s\u00fcresinin bitiminden itibaren \u2026 ay i\u00e7erisinde isk\u00e2n ruhsat\u0131n\u0131 al\u0131p arsa sahiplerine ibraz edecektir. \u0130sk\u00e2n ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n \u2026 ay i\u00e7erisinde teslim edilmemesi halinde ayn\u0131 cezai \u015fart isk\u00e2n i\u00e7in de ge\u00e7erlidir\u2026” h\u00fckm\u00fc ile isk\u00e2n ruhsat\u0131 al\u0131nabilmesi i\u00e7in teslimden sonra alt\u0131 ayl\u0131k bir s\u00fcrenin daha \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup, bu s\u00fcreye uyulmamas\u0131 halinde de daval\u0131 y\u00fcklenicinin arsa sahiplerine daire ba\u015f\u0131na her ay i\u00e7in \u2026.500,00 TL gecikme cezas\u0131 \u00f6deyece\u011fi h\u00fckm\u00fc kabul edilmi\u015ftir.Bu h\u00fck\u00fcmde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ilk b\u00f6l\u00fcme y\u00f6nelik cezai \u015fart BK’n\u0131n 158\/\u2026. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen ifaya ekli cezai \u015fart niteli\u011finde olup, bu h\u00fckme g\u00f6re, taraflarca aksi kararla\u015ft\u0131rmad\u0131k\u00e7a kural, gecikme cezas\u0131n\u0131n ifayla birlikte istenmesidir. \u0130htirazi kay\u0131t ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmeksizin ifan\u0131n kabul\u00fc, cezai \u015fart isteme hakk\u0131ndan z\u0131mni feragat niteli\u011findedir. Somut olayda, in\u015faat\u0131n fiilen teslim edildi\u011fi tarih konusunda herhangi bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bulunmay\u0131p, \u2026 takibinde teslim s\u00fcresine eklenen alt\u0131 ayl\u0131k s\u00fcrenin doldu\u011fu tarih ile takip tarihi aras\u0131ndaki d\u00f6nem i\u00e7in gecikme cezas\u0131 talep edilmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6zle\u015fmede taraflarca fiilen teslim s\u00fcresinden sonra isk\u00e2n ruhsat\u0131 al\u0131nabilmesi i\u00e7in ge\u00e7ecek s\u00fcre i\u00e7in ayr\u0131ca ve a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a cezai \u015fart \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu cezai \u015fart, isk\u00e2n ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n ibraz\u0131 ko\u015fuluna ba\u011fl\u0131 olup, dosya kapsam\u0131ndan isk\u00e2n ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n dava tarihinden sonra al\u0131nabildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu cezai \u015fart y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, ihtirazi kayd\u0131n ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilece\u011fi tarih, isk\u00e2n ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n ibraz edildi\u011fi tarih olacakt\u0131r. \u0130\u015fbu davan\u0131n, ihtirazi kay\u0131t anlam\u0131na geldi\u011finin kabul\u00fc ile, isk\u00e2n ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n gecikmesi hali i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen cezai \u015fart\u0131n talep edilebilece\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.
[5] Yarg\u0131tay (Kapat\u0131lan) 13. Hukuk Dairesi 2009\/1299 E., 2009\/9102 K. karar\u0131nda ifade edilmi\u015ftir:<\/strong>
Daval\u0131 \u2026\u2019in kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uyar\u0131nca kendisine isabet eden daireyi 8.5.2000 tarihli d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde gayrimenkul sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile davac\u0131ya satt\u0131\u011f\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine at\u0131fta bulunuldu\u011fu, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu, 30.10.2002 tarihinde teslim edilmesi gereken dairenin 2004 y\u0131l\u0131 Eyl\u00fcl ay\u0131nda eksik imalatla teslim edildi\u011fi, daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmayan i\u015flerin davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan tamamland\u0131\u011f\u0131 dosya kapsam\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Davac\u0131, ge\u00e7erli s\u00f6zle\u015fme uyar\u0131nca cezai \u015fart mahiyetinde olan kira kayb\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilece\u011fi gibi, eksik ve ay\u0131pl\u0131 \u2026 bedelini de isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir. Cezai \u015fart niteli\u011finde olan kira bedeli ile eksik ve ay\u0131pl\u0131 i\u015fler bedeli birbirinden tamamen farkl\u0131 istekler olup, her ikisinin bir arada istenmesine engel bir durum bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Mahkemece, de\u011finilen bu y\u00f6n g\u00f6zetilerek belirlenecek olan eksik ve ay\u0131pl\u0131 i\u015fler bedeline h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekirken, bu kalem iste\u011fin reddine karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131, usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r. Bozmay\u0131 gerektirir.
[6] Yarg\u0131tay 23. Hukuk Dairesi 2015\/936 E. , 2016\/4530 K. karar\u0131ndan al\u0131nt\u0131d\u0131r:<\/strong>
\u201cDava, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 ay\u0131pl\u0131 ve eksik i\u015f bedeli, cezai \u015fart, kira tazminat\u0131, de\u011fer kayb\u0131 ile istirdat istemine ili\u015fkindir. Arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde, hem cezai \u015fart, hem de kira tazminat\u0131n\u0131n bir arada d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi durumlarda, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede her iki tazminat\u0131n da ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 istenece\u011finin a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtilmemesi halinde cezai \u015farta ve e\u011fer cezai \u015fart\u0131 a\u015fan zarar ispatlan\u0131rsa kira tazminat\u0131n\u0131n da cezai \u015fart\u0131 a\u015fan k\u0131sm\u0131na h\u00fckmedilebilir. Hesaplanacak kira tazminat\u0131 miktar\u0131 cezai \u015fart miktar\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fm\u0131yorsa yaln\u0131zca cezai \u015farta h\u00fckmedilmekle yetinilmesi gerekir. Somut olayda, taraflar aras\u0131nda imzalanan 28.05.2003 tarihli arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde gecikme tazminat\u0131 ve cezai \u015fart\u0131n birlikte \u00f6denece\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan cezay\u0131 a\u015fan kira tazminat\u0131n\u0131n istenebilece\u011fi g\u00f6zetilerek bilirki\u015fiden \u00f6ncelikle toplam rayi\u00e7 kiran\u0131n belirlenmesi, toplam kira kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan cezai \u015fart\u0131n alt\u0131nda kalmas\u0131 halinde belirlenen cezai \u015farta, toplam rayi\u00e7 kiran\u0131n daha y\u00fcksek olmas\u0131 halinde ise, belirlenen kira bedeline h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekirken bu husus ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmadan nas\u0131l hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131 denetlenemeyen 1.000,00 TL kira bedeline h\u00fckmedilmesi do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u201d
Benzer y\u00f6nde Yarg\u0131tay 23. Hukuk Dairesi 2014\/8624 E. , 2015\/8528 K. karar\u0131nda ifade edilmi\u015ftir:
\u201cDava, taraflar aras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi nedeni ile cezai \u015fart ve gecikme tazminatlar\u0131 alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n tahsili istemine ili\u015fkindir. Mahkemece, cezai \u015fart ve gecikme tazminat\u0131 alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn talep edilebilece\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde s\u00f6zle\u015fmede bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde TBK’n\u0131n 180. ( BK. m. 159) madde h\u00fckm\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak sadece cezai \u015fart\u0131 a\u015fan k\u0131sma h\u00fckmedilebilece\u011fi g\u00f6zden ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131larak gecikme tazminat\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.\u201d
[7] Yarg\u0131tay 23. Hukuk Dairesi 2015\/8378 E. , 2018\/3536 K. karar\u0131ndan al\u0131nt\u0131d\u0131r:<\/strong>
\u201cDava, arsa kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin akdinden sonra imzalanan adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekildeki s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayan\u0131larak talep edilen cezai \u015fart ve tazminat talebine ili\u015fkindir. Arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin resmi \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmas\u0131 zorunludur. Tadil s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri de as\u0131l s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin tabi oldu\u011fu \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu nedenle mahkemece as\u0131l s\u00f6zle\u015fmede olmayan cezai \u015fart\u0131n adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmede kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle reddi yerindedir. Ancak kira tazminat\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 bir de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir. Kira tazminat\u0131 olarak isimlendirilen talepler, hukuk\u00ee niteli\u011fi itibariyle bir gecikme tazminat\u0131d\u0131r. Arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin zaman\u0131nda ifa edilmemesi nedeniyle arsa sahibinin u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n tazmine gecikme tazminat\u0131 denilmektedir. Arsa sahibine kalan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcmlerin s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye g\u00f6re teslim edilmesi gereken tarihten, teslim tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcrede mahrum kal\u0131nan kira bedeli gecikme tazminat\u0131n\u0131n en \u00f6nemli k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur.
Y\u00fcklenici, s\u00fcresinde in\u015faat\u0131 teslim borcunu yerine getirmemi\u015fse; arsa sahibi her zaman gecikme sebebiyle tazminat isteme hakk\u0131na sahiptir (TBK m.125\/\u2026). Bu sebeple, kira tazminat\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmede yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131na veya ihtirazi kay\u0131t konulmas\u0131na teslimde gerek olmaks\u0131z\u0131n talep edilebilmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca, mahkemece s\u00f6zle\u015fmedeki teslim tarihi, ile fiili teslim tarihi ve varsa eksik i\u015flerin yap\u0131labilece\u011fi s\u00fcre nazara al\u0131narak, y\u00fcklenicinin teslim borcunu ifada gecikmesi olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilerek \u00e7\u0131kacak sonuca g\u00f6re h\u00fck\u00fcm verilmesi gerekirken..\u201d
[8]Yarg\u0131tay 23. Hukuk Dairesi 2013\/8101 E. , 2014\/763 K. karar\u0131ndan al\u0131nt\u0131d\u0131r:<\/strong>
\u201cDavac\u0131lar ile dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 arsa malikleri ve daval\u0131 y\u00fcklenici aras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen 22.06.2007 g\u00fcnl\u00fc arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde t\u00fcm arsa sahipleri lehine cezai \u015fart kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fundan, talep edilen ifaya ekli cezai \u015fart alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi imzalayan davac\u0131 arsa maliklerinin hisseleri oran\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekirken bu y\u00f6n g\u00f6zetilmeden t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn dava a\u00e7an arsa maliklerine verilmesi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f, karar\u0131n bu nedenle bozulmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.\u201d
[9] Yarg\u0131tay 23. Hukuk Dairesi 2015\/9991 E. , 2018\/3769 K. karar\u0131ndan al\u0131nt\u0131d\u0131r:<\/strong>
\u201c6098 say\u0131l\u0131 TBK’n\u0131n 182\/\u2026. maddesi uyar\u0131nca hakim a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc cezai \u015fart miktar\u0131nda hakkaniyete uygun bir tenzilat yapar h\u00fckm\u00fc mevcuttur. M\u00fclga T\u00fcrk Ticaret Kanununun \u2026. ve 6102 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Ticaret Kanununun \u2026. maddelerinde tacir s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131 haiz bor\u00e7lunun T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 121. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131yla 182. maddesinin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131nda ve 525. maddesinde yaz\u0131l\u0131 h\u00e2llerde, a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 \u00fccret veya ceza kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131yla \u00fccret veya s\u00f6zle\u015fme cezas\u0131n\u0131n indirilmesini mahkemeden isteyemeyece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.
Somut olayda dosya kapsam\u0131 itibariyle arsa sahipleri ve daval\u0131 kooperatifin tacir olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle dava konusu cezai \u015fart isteminin dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturan taraflar aras\u0131ndaki in\u015faat
s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin \u2026. maddesindeki miktar\u0131n \u00e7ok a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 olup, taraf\u0131n mahv\u0131na sebep olabilece\u011fi g\u00f6zetilerek mahkemece 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 TBK’n\u0131n 182\/\u2026. maddesi uyar\u0131nca a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 olan cezai \u015fart miktar\u0131nda hakkaniyete uygun tenzilat yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi halde belirtilen hususlar g\u00f6zetilerek, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan cezai \u015fart\u0131n fahi\u015f olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve indirilmesi gerekip gerekmedi\u011fi tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmadan, cezai \u015fart alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015f h\u00fckm\u00fcn bu nedenle bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.\u201d
[10] Yarg\u0131tay 6. Hukuk Dairesi 2022\/3357 E. , 2023\/3326 K. karar\u0131ndan al\u0131nt\u0131d\u0131r:<\/strong>
\u201cS\u00f6zle\u015fme uyar\u0131nca toplam alt\u0131 adet daire in\u015fa edilecek, bunun \u00fc\u00e7 tanesi y\u00fckleniciye, \u00fc\u00e7 tanesi arsa sahiplerine ait olacakt\u0131r. Cezai \u015farta ili\u015fkin h\u00fckme g\u00f6re, y\u00fcklenici s\u00f6zle\u015fmede kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan s\u00fcrede i\u015fi teslim etmedi\u011fi takdirde, her bir arsa sahibine, dairesinin de\u011ferinin iki kat\u0131 kadar cezai \u015fart \u00f6deyecektir. Di\u011fer bir anlat\u0131mla, y\u00fcklenici bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ifas\u0131 halinde \u00fc\u00e7 adet daire elde edecek iken muhtemel bir gecikme halinde arsa sahiplerine toplam alt\u0131 adet daire de\u011feri kadar cezai \u015fart \u00f6demekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olacakt\u0131r. S\u00f6zle\u015fmeden elde edilecek menfaatin \u00e7ok \u00fczerinde kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan bu cezai \u015fart\u0131n, mahkeme gerek\u00e7esinde de belirtildi\u011fi gibi, y\u00fcklenicinin ekonomik y\u00f6nden mahv\u0131na neden olaca\u011f\u0131, bu bak\u0131mdan, az yukar\u0131da an\u0131lan yasal d\u00fczenlemeler uyar\u0131nca ahlaka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k olup s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin cezai \u015farta ili\u015fkin h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu kabul edilmelidir.\u201d
[11] Yarg\u0131tay 13. Hukuk Dairesi 2012\/15138 E. , 2012\/23631 K. karar\u0131ndan al\u0131nt\u0131d\u0131r:<\/strong>
\u201cDavac\u0131 ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen 28.10.2009 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fmede, davac\u0131 m\u00fcteahhit taraf\u0131ndan 01.07.2009 tarihli kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat ve gayrimenkul sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile \u2026 nolu parselde yap\u0131lacak in\u015faat\u0131n zeminini te\u015fkil eden i\u015fyerinin 330.000,00 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda daval\u0131ya sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin 20.000,00 TL s\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131n\u0131n banka hesab\u0131na havale edildi\u011fi, daval\u0131n\u0131n 07.12.2009 tarihli ihtarname ile s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden cayarak, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi feshetti\u011fi ve \u00f6dedi\u011fi 20.000,00 TL n\u0131n iadesini istedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Davac\u0131n\u0131n dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 arsa sahipleri ile 01.07.2009 ve 07.07.2009 tarihli noter tanzimli kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat ve gayrimenkul sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve daval\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fckleniciye isabet eden zemin katta te\u015fkil edecek i\u015fyerini sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 dosyadaki bilgi ve belgelerle sabittir. Arsa sahipleri ile y\u00fcklenici aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi gere\u011fi y\u00fckleniciye d\u00fc\u015fen dairelerin sat\u0131n al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zle\u015fme BK 162. maddesi ve Yarg\u0131tay Uygulamalar\u0131na g\u00f6re alaca\u011f\u0131n temliki h\u00fck\u00fcmleri gere\u011fince ge\u00e7erli bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme niteli\u011fini kazanmaktad\u0131r. Bu durumda davac\u0131 sat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen edimleri talebe hakk\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funun kabul\u00fc gerekir. O halde s\u00f6zle\u015fme ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011funa g\u00f6re, mahkemece davac\u0131n\u0131n talep etti\u011fi s\u00f6zle\u015fmede kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan cezai \u015fart\u0131n ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fup olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda inceleme yap\u0131larak sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken, mahkemece belirtilen hususlar g\u00f6zard\u0131 edilerek, eksik inceleme ve yanl\u0131\u015f de\u011ferlendirme ile davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup, bozma nedenidir.\u201d
Benzer y\u00f6nde Yarg\u0131tay (Kapat\u0131lan) 13. Hukuk Dairesi 2012\/15138 E. , 2012\/23631 K. karar\u0131nda ifade edilmi\u015ftir:
\u201cDavac\u0131n\u0131n dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 arsa sahipleri ile 01.07.2009 ve 07.07.2009 tarihli noter tanzimli kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat ve gayrimenkul sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve daval\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fckleniciye isabet eden zemin katta te\u015fkil edecek i\u015fyerini sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 dosyadaki bilgi ve belgelerle sabittir. Arsa sahipleri ile y\u00fcklenici aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi gere\u011fi y\u00fckleniciye d\u00fc\u015fen dairelerin sat\u0131n al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zle\u015fme BK 162. maddesi ve Yarg\u0131tay Uygulamalar\u0131na g\u00f6re alaca\u011f\u0131n temliki h\u00fck\u00fcmleri gere\u011fince ge\u00e7erli bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme niteli\u011fini kazanmaktad\u0131r. Bu durumda davac\u0131 sat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen edimleri talebe hakk\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funun kabul\u00fc gerekir.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
KAT KAR\u015eILI\u011eI \u0130N\u015eAAT S\u00d6ZLE\u015eMELER\u0130NDE CEZA\u0130 \u015eART Av.Merve Ay\u00e7e \u00d6ZMER\u0130\u00c7 ULUDA\u011e,2025 Kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde y\u00fcklenicinin as\u0131l edim borcu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye uygun \u015fekilde in\u015faat\u0131 tamamlamakt\u0131r. Bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerde y\u00fcklenicinin in\u015faat edim borcu \u00e7o\u011fu kez belli s\u00fcreye ba\u011flanmakta olup, anahtar teslimi, fiili teslim, iskan\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131 gibi s\u00fcrelere ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde ise cezai \u015fart \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bu sebeple makalemizde kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde cezai \u015fart\u0131n hukuki boyutu Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131 ile beraber de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir. \u00d6ncelikle belirtmek isteriz ki bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere, kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri ancak resmi \u015fekilde (tapuda veya noterde) yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde ge\u00e7erlidir.(TBK md.237,TMK 706) Bir ba\u015fka deyi\u015fle adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde yap\u0131lan yahut s\u00f6zl\u00fc kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri ge\u00e7erli de\u011fildir. Bu sebeple kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ili\u015fkin \u201ccezai \u015fart\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fc i\u00e7eren s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin de resmi \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. Uygulamada s\u0131kl\u0131kla resmi s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6ncesi ve sonras\u0131 adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde \u201c\u00f6n s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u201c, \u201cek s\u00f6zle\u015fme\u201d veya \u201cprotokol\u201d akdedilmekte olup, bu s\u00f6zle\u015fme ve protokollerde yer alan cezai \u015fart h\u00fck\u00fcmleri \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131 sebebiyle ge\u00e7ersiz olacakt\u0131r. Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan da, resmi s\u00f6zle\u015fme sonras\u0131 akdedilen cezai \u015fart i\u00e7eren bu ek s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin \u201cyan h\u00fck\u00fcm\u201d de\u011fil \u201cek y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fck\u201c i\u00e7ermesi sebebiyle ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu ifade edilmektedir ve bu sebeple ek s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye ba\u011fl\u0131 cezai \u015fart talepleri hukuken kabul g\u00f6rmemektedir[1]. Yine cezai \u015fart talebinde, kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi hususunda bir […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":117,"featured_media":591,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1,4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/ozmeric.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/ozmeric.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/ozmeric.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/ozmeric.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/117"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/ozmeric.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=583"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/ozmeric.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":590,"href":"http:\/\/ozmeric.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583\/revisions\/590"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/ozmeric.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/ozmeric.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=583"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/ozmeric.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=583"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/ozmeric.av.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}