At the end of the trial of the defamatory property case between the parties, the file was examined and considered on the need to be reviewed by the plaintiff's lawyer within the period of the ruling issued for the dismissal of the case for reasons written in the proclamation. Plaintiff, one of the defendants M. C.. According to the announcement made on the website of “the subject of the case... license plate.. model C. G. C. Jeep brand car that the owner of the notary registration was purchased from the other defendant on 17.09.2013 by the owner of the notary registration from the other defendant, the authorized service defendant M. G. E. has shown that there is no problem with the vehicle in the issued voucher, and that the expert service provided for the second hand is reported to have been reported as wrong, as well as the expertise service provided by the second hand, and requested that the moral compensation of TL 27,518,91 and TL 10,000, which he paid as a vehicle price, be collected from the defendants. The defendants argued for the dismissal of the case. Since the Court of First Instance cannot be considered as the Consumer Court by the Court of First Instance, the court has been ordered to send the case to the competent Court of Appeal; the judgment has been appealed by the claimant.M, which provides expert services from the plaintiff and the defendants. A service legal relationship has been established between G. under Article 4/A of Law No. 4077 and there is a case arising from the fact that the service is defective. Under Article 23 of Law No. 4077, the competent court is the Consumer Court. The case against other defendants must also be heard in the same court that is subject to this defendant. While the Court of Justice 2014/8986-15461 is based on the merits, the parties' evidence must be collected and evaluated and the decision should be made in accordance with its conclusion, whereas the issuance of a decision of incapacity in writing with other considerations is contrary to the procedure and the law and the reason for the violation of the law.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 14.5.2014 to CANCEL the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
