As noted above, both parties to the simulated transaction and third parties who were confronted with the simulated transaction can, in good faith, argue in court for such a dubious agreement and seek damages. However, the parties are required to prove their assertion. „D. Interpretation of Contracts, Simulation To decide the nature or terms of a contract, the true intent and mutual consent of the parties must be taken into account, in defiance of any statement used either by mistake or to conceal the true intent of the parties. 2. Relative – the actual transaction is hidden; The parties do not conceal their true agreement; The parties bind themselves to their effective agreement if they do not harm third parties or are not assigned for retaliation, law, morals, etc. If the concealed contract is legal, it is entirely applicable provided it has all the essential conditions: consent, opposition and cause. For third parties without notice, the apparent contract applies to purposes that are useful to them. In addition to the nullity of the simulated agreement, the Court of Appeal, in its decision of 24.02.2010 and under the number E. 2010/6-94, also has the nullity of the agreement; K. 2010/100[iv] also indicated that the undercover transaction is valid when the general and essential conditions of validity of an agreement are met (capacity of the parties, exchange of consents, non-opposition to public order, etc.). Accordingly, it can be made clear that in the absence of new simulation provisions in the NTCOO, Parliament wishes to maintain TCOO`s vision if this theme is primarily developed by the practice and decisions of the Court of Appeal.

For the known third parties of the simulation, they do not acquire a better right to the simulated contract than the original parts. Two types of simulated transactions are accepted according to Turkish legal doctrine; „absolute simulation“ and „relative simulation.“