CAN A LIABILITY DECISION BE MADE FOR BANK’S CHECK AND GUARANTEE LETTERS AS GUARANTEE?

Banks require collateral for the checks or letters of guarantee they have given to their customers. This collateral can sometimes be real estate and sometimes securities. But what if banks resort to foreclosures to cover their own risks? A jurisprudence has been developed that the provisional attachment is not an enforcement action but a special temporary legal protection institution, therefore, a provisional attachment decision cannot be made for the debt to provide collateral.

The answer to this question has been given by the decision of the Supreme General Assembly of the Supreme Court with the decision numbered 2016/1, 2017/6 and 27.12.2017, and at the same time, the differences of opinion between the legal departments have been resolved. Lien; Since it is a private temporary legal protection institution, not an “execution procedure”, a decision can only be made within the framework of the conditions in Article 257 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law. In that case, a precautionary attachment decision cannot be made for the “deposit” of the security. It has been decided that a provisional attachment decision cannot be made for the debt to provide security.

I- INTRODUCTION

A- Application to Combine Case Laws

Hunting. H.O. With his petition dated 16.05.2013, he demanded the unification of the case-laws, stating that there was a conflict between the case-laws of the 11th and 19th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation on the issue of whether a precautionary attachment decision could be given or not, in terms of the costs of the letters of guarantee and the legal equivalents of the check sheets that have not yet been submitted.

B- The Subject of Combining Ijtihads

Unification of Jurisprudence As a result of the preliminary discussions held in the General Assembly of Law, the subject of unifying the jurisprudence was determined as “whether a precautionary attachment decision can be made for the debt to provide collateral”.

C- Decisions Subject to the Request for Elimination of Disagreement

-11th. Decisions of the Legal Department;

22.02.2012 day and 935/2567 APPENDIX

22.10.2012 day and 14297/16782 APPENDIX

06.11.2012 day and 17303/20159 APPENDIX

05.12.2012 day and 16721/19916 APPENDIX

06.12.2012 day and 16708/20135 APPENDIX

22.03.2013 and 4061/5666 APPENDIX

12.11.2014 day and 16182/17386 APPENDIX

10.10.2016 day and 10144/7925 APPENDIX

10.10.2016 day and 8593/7926 EK

-19. Decisions of the Legal Department;

13.12.2007 day and 11443/11273 APPENDIX

15.03.2010 day and 1520/2849 APPENDIX

D- Summary of Opinions of the Chambers

During the preliminary evaluation phase of the request for unification of case law, the opinions of both Special Chambers whose decisions were inconsistent with the case-law were taken.

1. Opinion of the 11th Civil Chamber on the possibility of a precautionary attachment decision

For this reason, in the annex of the application petition, it is stated that there is no contradiction between the decision of the 19th Civil Chamber dated 15.03.2010 and numbered 1520/2899 and their own decisions, and that the letter of guarantee is cashed in the decision of the 19th Civil Chamber dated 13.12.2007 and numbered 11443/11273 in the appendix of the petition. Since it has been stated that it has not been converted and therefore the receivable is not due; As a result, it was stated that the terms of the contract should be evaluated in terms of the maturity of the liability amounts on the letter of guarantee and blank check leaves. .

2. Opinion of the 19th Civil Chamber that a provisional attachment decision cannot be made

In the opinion letter of the 19th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Article 42 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law states that “Foreclosure proceedings regarding the payment of money or the delivery of a security start with enforcement proceedings and will occur through foreclosure or by converting the pledge into money or bankruptcy”; Based on this provision, the subject of enforcement proceedings without judgment is money receivables and the provision of collateral, the lawsuit filed for the storage of the effective letter of guarantee is called the depository case, and in terms of the cost of the letters of guarantee, the risk of which does not materialize for these reasons, and the minimum checks that the bank has to pay but has not paid yet. According to Article 257 of the Bankruptcy Law, no precautionary lien can be demanded, since only monetary debt is mentioned in the said article, Considering that the phrase allowing precautionary attachment for the guarantee claim was removed from the provision of the article with the Law No. 4949, therefore, there is no due debt in terms of the letter of guarantee or check value, the amount of the letter of guarantee is not converted into money and the minimum check amount is not paid, the provisional attachment request should not be accepted, II. It has been stated that if the decisions of the Civil Chamber are stable, the case-laws should be combined in line with the opinion of the 19th Civil Chamber.

3. The Issue on which Two Chambers with Different Case-Laws Agree and Cannot Agree

In summary, the 11th Civil Chamber and the 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals agree in their opinions and jurisprudence that the receivable must be due in order to be able to issue an interim attachment according to Article 257 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, if there is a provision in the contracts between the bank and the beneficiary regarding the unpaid letter of guarantee or the amount that is legally required to be paid for a bad check because the risk has not yet materialized, “the bank may deposit the risk amount to be paid in relation to the letter of guarantee or bad check before the risk occurs”, a provisional attachment decision can be made by accepting that the power of depositing includes the power to request a provisional attachment; On the other hand, the 19th Civil Chamber,

II- CONCEPTS, INSTITUTIONS AND LEGAL REGULATIONS REGARDING JUDGMENT CONNECTION

A- Definition and Nature of the Injunction

1. Definition:

A precautionary lien is the prior and temporary seizure of the debtor’s property, by court order, in order to secure the timely payment of a money claim by the creditor. Precautionary attachment as a special type of injunction is regulated in the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (Kuru, B.: Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Handbook, 2.b., Ankara 2013. p. 1033-1034).

2. Legislation:

Article 257 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, titled “precautionary lien conditions”, is as follows:

“The creditor of a monetary debt that has not been pledged and is due, may precautionary seize the movable and immovable properties and receivables and other rights of the debtor in the seventh or third party.

A precautionary lien may be requested only in the following cases due to an undue debt:

1- If the debtor does not have a specific place of residence;

2- If the debtor prepares to hide, smuggle, or flee his goods in order to avoid his commitments, or if he flees or engages in fraudulent transactions that violate the rights of the creditor for this purpose;

In this way, if a precautionary lien is placed, the debt becomes due only for the debtor”.

Since the subject of unification of the case law is the pursuit for collateral, it is also necessary to refer to Article 42 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law, titled “pursuance for money debt and collateral”. In the article in question:

“Compulsory executions regarding the payment of a money or the delivery of a security start with a request for follow-up and occur through foreclosure or by converting the pledge into money or bankruptcy.

It is not possible to apply against a foreign state by means of a follow-up without judgment.

In matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the administrative judiciary, it cannot be pursued without a verdict.” regulation is included.

3. The Concept of Due Diligence in Terms of Enforcement Law:

At this stage, it is useful to focus on the concept of maturity. Due date can be demanded by the creditor and it means that the debtor is obliged to fulfill the obligation by complying with this demand. Due date and maturity are not the same thing; In terms of the application of precautionary attachment, the maturity and time of maturity should be determined (Özekes, M.: Prudential Attachment in Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, Ankara 1999).

B- Non-Cash Loan Relationship

The definition of credit was not made in the Banking Law, instead an unlimited count was preferred (art. 48). In economic terms, credit is defined as giving up the use of a ready purchasing power in favor of another person for a certain period of time or leaving this power to him (Tekinalp, V.: Principles of Banking Law. 2.b., Istanbul 2009. p.477). In the legal definition of the loan, in addition to the “purchasing power”, an element of “assuming any responsibility arising from risk” is also included.

A bank loan agreement means that the lender undertakes a risk by lending money to the borrower under certain conditions or by allocating the loan (reputation) to his order; In return, the borrower undertakes to return the money he has received or to eliminate the risk, or to compensate for the loss caused by the payment made upon the realization of the risk, and to pay a premium (under the names of commission, interest, etc.) to the lender (Tekinalp. p.479: Oğuz C.: Bank Loan Agreement, Ankara 2004, p. 7, Yüksel, AS: Banking Credit Agreement, Istanbul 1972, p.24, Karakaş, CF: Protection of Bank Receivables in Execution and Bankruptcy Law, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Ankara 2018. p.30-21).

Based on this definition, it can be said that non-cash loans do not directly issue money, in other words, do not lend money; instead, it is the type of loan that the borrower undertakes by making a commitment in favor of the borrower (Tekinalp. p. 509).

When non-cash loans are cash bonds as per the Banking Law; in other words, they turn into cash loans in case they make a cash outflow due to the responsibility undertaken by the creditor (art. 48/1).

C- Legal Character of Bank Letters of Guarantee

1. Legal Basis:

In Article 48 of the Banking Law No. 5411, there is a regulation that “Letters of guarantee given by banks, …, the value of non-cash loans as cash bonds … are considered as loans in the application of this Law, regardless of the account they are followed”.

2. Legal Nature:

The legal nature of the letters of guarantee is not specified in the laws.

In its decision to consolidate the jurisprudence of 1967, the Court of Cassation discussed in detail the legal nature of bank letters of guarantee and accepted that these letters were not in the nature of surety and should be considered as guarantee contracts. According to the aforementioned Jurisprudence Decision, “…as the title of the bank is the guarantor, the commitment is separate and completely independent from the parties making the articles of association and the articles of association, and that the bank commitment will constitute a guarantee commitment regardless of the validity and existence of the beneficiary’s debt; Regardless of the objections that the principal debtor may raise, it is stated that in the event that the compensation for the loss arising from the failure to fulfill the debt is accepted, the situation of giving a guarantee is in question and the person who guarantees the act of the third party enters into an independent commitment…” (13.12.1967 day and 1966/16 E., 1967/ 7 K. IBC No. Likewise, in another Decision to Unify the Jurisprudence dated 1967: “…The letter of guarantee is a guarantee contract of the act of the third party mentioned in Article 110 of the Code of Obligations (TCO m. 128)…” (11.06.1969 day and 1969/4 E., IBK No. 1969/6 K.).

The contract regarding the letters of guarantee is a guarantee contract in the nature of a commitment to a certain act or acts of the third party within the scope of Article 128 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), and the bank debt only arises when the risk arises (Reisoğlu. S.: Bank Letters of Guarantee. and Counterguarantees, 4.b., Ankara 2003). In the letters of guarantee, the guarantee agreement between the bank and the addressee is not an abstract debt acknowledgment, and for the birth of the bank’s obligation to pay, the addressee must prove that the risk remaining within the scope of the guarantee agreement has been realized (Doğan, V.: Banka Guarantee Letters, 2.b., p. 177) .

3. Definition of Risk:

The dictionary meaning of risk (risk) is “the occurrence of a future, uncertain or timeless event that causes the loss of something or the emergence of any other damage, against the will of the parties” (see Turkish Law Dictionary, p.287). If an event is certain to occur or not to occur, risk cannot be mentioned. Risk can also be defined as the occurrence of an economically harmful event or the failure of a beneficial event to occur. The concept of risk in letters of guarantee is not so vague, because there is a contractual sub-relationship between the beneficiary and the addressee (as a rule) in the letters of guarantee, and if the beneficiary does not fulfill the main and/or side performance obligations arising from this contract on time, fully and duly, the risk in terms of the addressee can be said to occur. Obligation of the guaranteeing bank,

4. Conclusion in terms of letters of guarantee:

The explanations made above show that the bank’s debt arising from the non-cash loan agreement made to ensure the issuance of a letter of guarantee is not a direct cash outflow, but a risk undertaking; It is understood that the bank cannot recourse to its customer unless the risk is realized and the bank pays the addressee, in other words, the letter price is not compensated. Proceedings cannot be carried out before the letter price is compensated and the right of recourse arises (Bank. K. Art. 48).

D- Legal Liability Accepted for Check Leaf

1. Legislation:

Article 3 of the Check Law No. 5941, titled “Presentation, payment, determination of bounced check and delay penalty”:

“1I) When the check against is presented to any branch of the addressee bank where the account is located, it is paid after the tax identification number of the holder, if any, is determined. However, when the check is presented to a branch other than the branch where the account is located, it is paid by that branch by asking for the equivalent.

(2) The “unpaid” transaction is made limited to the portion of the check value that cannot be met, excluding the amount that the addressee bank is legally obliged to pay the pregnant woman.

(3) For each pregnant check sheet submitted in due time, except the addressee bank, the issuing issuer;

a) In the absence of any provision,

1) If the check value is one thousand Turkish Liras or more, one thousand Turkish Liras,

2) If the check value is less than one thousand Turkish Liras, the check amount,

b) In case of partial compensation,

1) If the check value is one thousand Turkish Liras or less, an amount to complement the partial equivalent to one thousand Turkish Liras, provided that it does not exceed the check value,

2) If the check value is over one thousand Turkish Liras, provided that it does not exceed the check value, in addition to the partial cash, one thousand Turkish Liras,

liable to pay. This is in the form of an irrevocable non-cash loan agreement made during the delivery of the checkbook between the account holder and the addressee bank. The amount in this paragraph is determined by the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey in January every year, taking into account the annual changes in the price indices published by the Turkish Statistical Institute and published in the Official Gazette.”

formatted.

2. Legal Nature:

In subparagraph (b) of the second paragraph of the third article of the Czech Law; If the check amount is over one thousand Turkish Liras, the bank is obliged to pay one thousand Turkish Liras in addition to the partial reserve, provided that it does not exceed the check value; it is envisaged that this issue is in the form of an irrevocable non-cash loan agreement made during the delivery of the checkbook between the account holder and the addressee bank.

3. Conclusion on Checks:

The responsibility imposed on the bank per sheet in dishonored checks is not a contractual but a legal non-cash loan. Accordingly, if the check is dishonored, the bank has to pay the pregnant woman the amount stipulated in the Law by fulfilling the other conditions stipulated in the Law (Cheque Law Art.3). In this state, unrequitedness is a responsibility that the bank assumes as per the Law, and it becomes demandable by turning into a cash loan with the payment made to the pregnant woman.

III- REASON

As a result of the discussions held at the Law General Assembly to Unify the Jurisprudence, it was discussed and evaluated whether a precautionary seizure decision could be made regarding the bank letters of guarantee, whose risk has not yet materialized, and the checks that are not clear whether they have been bounced or not:

A- The contract between the bank issuing the letter of guarantee and the addressee is in the nature of a guarantee contract. The responsibility of the bank is not an accessory, it is a primary debt independent of the main debt.

While issuing the letter of guarantee, the bank can secure itself for the risk of the letter of guarantee given by taking cash, pledge of securities, mortgage, letter of guarantee. Likewise, in the contract, all kinds of additional guarantees will be given or the credit risk of the beneficiary increases, the letters of guarantee are not returned despite the request, there is doubt about the status of the beneficiary, the financial situation of the beneficiary is shaken, or without giving any reason; the amount of the letter of guarantee that has not yet been converted into cash based on the provision in the contract; The bank may request storage from the beneficiary, joint debtor and guarantor.

In order to store the collateral, follow-up can be made without judgment. (EBL. art. 42/1). On the other hand, regarding the letters of guarantee that have not been turned into cash yet, no follow-up can be made through general attachment for the collection of the amount in the letter of guarantee. Because the debt arising from the money receivable has not become due since the risk has not been realized and the bank has not yet made any payments. A provisional attachment decision cannot be made for a receivable that is not due (EİK. m.257/1).

B- Pursuant to Article 3 of the Check Law No. 5941; the addressee bank, to pay up to the legal liability amount (1,410,-TL for the year 2017) in case there is no equivalent of the check submitted in due time; If the check is partially paid, it is obliged to complete the remaining amount. In the same article, it is explained that this issue regarding the payment obligation is like an irrevocable non-cash loan agreement made during the delivery of the checkbook between the account holder and the addressee bank. Since this payment burden has been imposed on banks in accordance with the aforementioned Law, it is obligatory to accept that the debtor’s deposit in the bank is pledged in favor of the bank, limited to the amount of legal liability for each check sheet given to the customer by the bank. Whether each check sheet in the checkbook issued by the bank has been used or not, Especially until the date of 31.12.2020, the bank’s risk may only be in question in terms of used and unpaid checks, in the face of the fact that the check has actually been accepted due to the fact that the presentation of the check before the issuance date (5941 p. K. late article 3/5), If the risk has not materialized, it should be accepted that there is no overdue receivable. It is undisputed that a precautionary attachment decision cannot be made for this non-due receivable (EİK. Art. 257/1).

C- Kanunen ödenmesi zorunlu meblağ ile ilgili olarak, banka ile lehtar veya müşteri arasındaki sözleşmede, risk gerçekleşmeden bankanın teminat mektubu veya karşılıksız çekle ilgili ileride ödenecek risk bedelini “depo ettirebileceği” hükmü varsa, depo ettirme yetkisinin ihtiyati haciz isteme yetkisini de içerdiğini dolayısıyla bu durumda ihtiyati haciz kararı verilebileceği görüşünde ise de hemen belirtmek gerekir ki, ihtiyati haciz talep edilebilmesi için kural olarak borcun vadesinin gelmiş/istenebilir/muaccel olması gerekir (İİK.m.257/1). O hâlde asıl sorun: henüz tazmin edilmemiş teminat mektubu veya karşılıksız kalıp kalmayacağı henüz belli olmayan çeklerin kanuni karşılıkları olan bedellerin banka tarafından istenip istenemeyeceği konusudur. Banka ile müşterisi arasında yapılan teminat mektubu veya çek hesabı açma sözleşmelerinde banka lehine “risk gerçekleşmeden teminat mektubu bedeli veya karşılıksız çek bedelinden bankanın ödemek zorunda kalacağı meblağın depo edilmesini isteme yetkisi, söz konusu alacağın mevcut olduğunu göstermediği gibi, istenebilir olduğunu da göstermez. Zira “depo etmek” ifa etmek değildir. Sözleşmede anılan şekilde hüküm olsa bile, banka sadece “depo edilmesini” isteyebilir. Kendisine ödeme yapılmasını (ifa) talep edemez. Esasen bankanın sözleşmeye bu şekilde bir hüküm koymakla riskten kaynaklanacak alacağını garanti altına almış olacağından, özel hukuki koruma müessesesi olan ihtiyati hacze ihtiyacı da kalmamaktadır.

D- Article 257 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law, titled “Precautionary Seizure Conditions”, refers to an existing and overdue debt. However, in the delaying contingent receivable, the legal action’s giving birth to the provisions is dependent on the realization of the condition. In the delay clause, the provisions of the transaction start not on the date of the legal transaction, but as a rule when the condition is fulfilled. Although the legal transaction took place before the condition is fulfilled, it is not yet clear whether this transaction will create a right in favor of the creditor, and there is only an expectation in terms of contingent receivables. Since the determination of the accrual of the condition will only require a court decision, unless agreed by the parties; It is also not possible to proceed to the collection of this receivable by following the general attachment method.

Because, whether the doubtful and future event will take place, whether the contingent debt will lead to a demand and a traceable receivable, will only be clear when the condition is fulfilled. It cannot be said that the amount of the letter of guarantee that has not yet been compensated or the legal reserve cost that the bank will have to pay due to the possibility that it may be unrequited is an existing and due receivable before the risk is realized. As a matter of fact, it has been accepted that it is not possible to request a precautionary attachment for a contingent receivable under Article 257 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law.

E- Precautionary attachment conditions are listed in Article 257 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. In the amendment made in this article with the 59th article of the Law No. 4949 of 17.07.2003, the title of the article was “Injunctive attachment”, while “Preliminary attachment conditions”; The phrase “debt” in the first paragraph has been changed to “money debt”. This change shows that, even if the security receivables can be followed through general attachment without a verdict pursuant to Article 42 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, a provisional attachment decision cannot be made. Because in Article 257 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law, precautionary attachment is foreseen only for “money receivables”. Lien; Since it is a private temporary legal protection institution, not an “execution procedure”, a decision can only be made within the framework of the conditions in Article 257 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law. In that case,

IV- CONCLUSION

In the first session held on 27.12.2017, it was decided by a majority of votes exceeding two-thirds that no provisional attachment decision could be made for the debt to provide security.

NEGATIVE VOTE

In terms of the amount of the bank letter of guarantee included in the non-cash receivables and the amount of the dishonored check to be paid by the bank, in the contract drawn up between the bank and the beneficiary and the bank and the check account holder, in case there is a provision regarding the storage of the letter value and the amount of the bad check, the bank’s cash collateral The issue of whether it can demand a precautionary lien in order to ensure that it is stored is the subject of combining the jurisprudence.

Article 257/1 of the EBL, amended by Law No. 4949, regulates that “the creditor of a monetary debt that is not secured by pledge and is due can have his movable and immovable properties, receivables and other rights sequestered by the debtor’s seventh or third party”.

While the phrase “…the creditor of money debt” in the text of the law was expressed as “the creditor of a debt” in the text of the article before the law amendment, as stated in the justification for the amendment, it was emphasized that, unlike the interim injunction, the interim attachment is a protection measure foreseen only for the money receivables. The amendment has been made on the grounds that an interim attachment cannot be demanded for requests other than money receivables. Otherwise, it is not intended to exclude the guarantee receivables from the scope of article 257 of the EBL.

It is accepted that the receivables that are the basis of the precautionary seizure are money and guarantee receivables in parallel with the follow-up through general lien. In this respect, the concept of monetary debt is broadly understood to include collateral receivables. (Üstündağ p. 475, Berkin p.45, Ansay p.312, Kuru p. 2495, Kuru-Batider 1976/3 p.38)

As a matter of fact, as stated in Article 42 of the EBL, it is possible to carry out enforcement proceedings without a verdict for the payment of monetary debt, and it is possible to carry out enforcement proceedings without a verdict to provide security.

While enforcement proceedings without judgment are possible for any type of collateral receivable, it is not possible to request a precautionary lien for every type of collateral, according to Article 42 of the EBL. In this regard, it is necessary to distinguish between collateral, the subject of which is money, and collateral receivables, whose subject is something other than money.

After the amendment made with the law numbered 4949 in Article 257 of the EBL, it will no longer be possible to demand precautionary lien for collateral receivables whose subject is something other than money.

However, there is no problem in demanding precautionary lien for collaterals that are in the form of money, especially in the form of depositing a certain amount of money. Since the receivable that is the basis of the injunction is money receivable, in case the promised security is not shown, the creditor (more precisely, the deposit of the money) may file a lawsuit for the storage of this money (depot case), or he may proceed with an execution proceeding without a verdict. For the claims that may be the subject of such a current or future lawsuit or enforcement proceeding, an interim attachment may also be requested as a temporary protection measure. Because the purpose of the injunction is to secure the follow-ups for the money receivables. The subject of the lawsuit or proceeding, in which the injunction secures the outcome, may be a demand for performance that provides the final satisfaction of the creditor, There may also be a request to provide collateral to the creditor. The important thing here is to secure the demand for a money receivable. (Özekes-Precautionary Seizure Ankara/1999 p.112)

In the case of collateral, the subject of which is money, after the debtor’s goods are placed in a precautionary lien for the collateral receivable, the creditor must either proceed without a verdict for the security or file a warehouse lawsuit in the court within 7 days. (Baki Kuru-Execution and Bankruptcy Law, Volume 1 Sh.205)

In this respect, since the concept of “…money debt” mentioned in article 257/1 of EBL includes collaterals, the subject of which is money, this condition regulated in article 257/1 of EBL has been fulfilled in terms of conflict which constitutes the subject of unification of jurisprudence. The other condition stipulated in article 257/1 of the EBL regarding the receivable not being secured with a pledge is not a matter of discussion anyway.

EHR 257/1. As for the condition of maturity in the article;

If there is a provision in the counter-guarantee agreement between the bank and the counter-guarantee regarding the storage of the amount of the bank letter of guarantee and the amount of the unrequited check sheet in the contract between the bank and the check account holder, filing a warehouse lawsuit against these amounts together with the fold of the account – making an execution proceeding without a verdict or In order to be able to request an interim attachment, the condition of maturity has been fulfilled.

Making the realization of the due condition conditional on the payment of the bank letter of guarantee or the amount of the unrequited check sheet only to the drawee will result in ignoring the provisions of the contract between the parties. Since the receivable-deposit demand will be due together with the full amount of the account, according to the contract provision, the condition of dueness stipulated in article 257/1 of the EBL has also been fulfilled.

In conclusion,

If there is a provision in the contract to provide a letter of guarantee between the bank and the counter-guarantee (beneficiary) that the amount of the letter of guarantee will be deposited in the contract drawn up between the bank and the check account holder, the amount of the unrequited check sheet will be stored, since these amounts constitute collateral for the bank and are related to the collateral money, Considering that the creditor bank can file a deposit lawsuit as well as carry out enforcement proceedings without a verdict pursuant to article 42 of the EBL, for the collateral receivable within the scope of “money debt” in article 257/1 of the EBL It is also possible to decide on a precautionary seizure, which is one of the legal protection measures.

For the reasons explained, we are against the majority opinion.