Void of Act

Section 172 Act of the void can not be ratified. And one of the stakeholders will lift the void of voidness.

If the property must be returned from a void. The provisions of this Code shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7666/2559.

The plaintiff's intention to enter into the plaintiff's life insurance contract is due to the seriousness in the number of years to pay the premium. And the wrong one is caused by the defendant, the insurance agent of the second defendant to provide information that does not meet the conditions of the policy. The number of years to pay premiums is considered as the essence of the insurance contract. Life insurance between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 is void under Section 156 paragraph one when the life insurance contract is void. No binding contract parties to the two can not apply the general terms of life insurance policy that the plaintiff must exercise the right to cancel the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. Applicable If the provisions on Apparatus to apply under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 172, paragraph two, the defendant must return the premium to the plaintiff.

Section 173. If any part of the act is void. The act is void. Except as may be assumed by the circumstances of the case. The parties intend to make the non-null part separate from the null part.

Section 174. Any void but other legal nature which is not void. To be legal. Not void. If it is assumed by the circumstances of the case. If the parties know that it is void. It would have been intentional at first to do other legal acts that do not invalidate it.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3440 - 3441/2559.

The plaintiff sued. The plaintiff is the land dispute, which is mortgaged with the defendant bank 1 and 2 to repay the mortgage to the bank instead of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sold the land dispute to the defendants 1 and 2, with no intention to actually trade and the defendants 1 and 2 did not intend to own the intention to raise the dispute to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff's case. It is not a camouflage. Because the act of camouflage under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph two, it must have two legal acts, both parties pretend to commit one act camouflage another law, which is intended to tie the legal relationship. However, according to the plaintiff's complaint is only a legal transaction of land disputes. There are 2 legal acts camouflage. The first and second defendant to pay the mortgage to the plaintiff instead of the plaintiff. It is not the first and second defendants acted with the plaintiff. The issue of the case is that the plaintiff claimed. The plaintiff and the defendant, 1 and 2, deliberately deceived by the other party to know. The waiver of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph one, an interested person to raise any claim at any time, according to Section 172, the plaintiff sued to withdraw the plaintiff at any time. Although the plaintiff sued the case for more than 10 years, the right to sue for the revocation of the plaintiff's act is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 534/2559.

Defendant 1 fraudulently plaintiffs by fraudulent means that the policy is the same as the deposit with the bank can withdraw money, but the privilege is protected by life insurance and to sign a life insurance claim and the defendant, the first defendant. Submitted to the defendant 2 for the plaintiff to enter into a life insurance agreement with the defendant. 2, the plaintiff is the plaintiff agreed to enter into insurance contracts. With the defendant in the wrong or wrong in the content or nature of the act of the substance of the act. Life insurance will be void under Section 156 paragraph one and the second defendant, which received a premium from the plaintiff, so the money received for the plaintiff due to the plaintiff as a result of the death. Section 172, second paragraph, Section 412.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15919/2555.

Issue Certificate (Miss. 3g.) No. 4410 is a specific issue. The evidence of Aug 1 of the land conversion as evidence as the report of the 3 A legally unlawful. To be withdrawn under Section 61 of the land which, according to the plaintiff's indictment, clearly described that the defendant, Miss. 3 g, was illegally issued to sell the plaintiff and receive 660,000 baht, the defendant is not the owner of the land. that The plaintiff can not buy land. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to make a contract by mistake in the substance of the act. The contract is a void under Section 156 of the Reparation of property under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 172, paragraph two, Section 412, so the plaintiff sued the defendant to return the land. And the prosecution of the plaintiff to pursue a refund under Section 1336 no age. Plaintiff's case is not terminated. And when the plaintiff does not claim that the defendant asked to pay back when. The defendant must return the amount of interest plus the date of filing.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6838/2555.

Although the memorandum of sharing of inheritance will be a compromise agreement under Section 1574 (12) that the Act does not represent the minor. Except the court will allow the defendant and the second defendant made the record instead of the defendant, who is a minor child without the court's permission to violate the provisions. But the court request? It is not a legal act and the law is not explicitly stated that the act violates the provisions of such a void. The law provides that legal entities do not act on the property of minors under Section 1574, unless the court permits. It is the intention of the law that the court wishes to supervise the interests of the minor. To ensure that the legal representatives perform their duties as provided for by law for the benefit of the minor. The act violates the provisions, so it is not so invalid. The only effect is not binding the minor. The provisions of the law are intended only for protection. This problem is a legal issue of public order. Civil Code Section 142 (5), when the memorandum of sharing of the inheritance is not invalid, that any one of the stakeholders can lift the void of void. The claim was made by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 172, paragraph one, but the effect is not binding on the defendant, who is a minor. It is the only defendant to raise the breach of such provisions, claiming that they do not have to be bound by such records, so the plaintiffs who are third parties have no right to raise a claim to revoke the memorandum. Share the property legacy.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1365/2554.

The plaintiff and the defendant know that the land has no provisions to transfer within 10 years under Section 31 of the land, but it traded by avoiding such requirements. How to make a contract to buy and sell. It is expressly prohibited by law. It also registered the lease to the defendant, who would buy a camouflage. And will testify that when the plaintiff died of plaintiff's land is the defendant. All such acts are null and void. It is not a case of void and then be washed later. To make the party back to the position as it was. Some of the land paid to the defendant is so arbitrary as to repay the debt, knowing that they have no obligation to pay. The plaintiff has no right to return the money.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2952/2554.

The contract of sale of land and property is a contract made without a real intention to bond. The intent of the trick by the acquaintance between the plaintiff and the defendant. To the plaintiff brought the land and the disputed home to the mortgage as collateral for loans to banks. And the defendant entered into a lease agreement to guarantee the debt to the bank. The contract of sale and lease is therefore void under Section 155 paragraph one.

Section 175 Void Act. The following people will tell me to wash it.

(1) a legal representative or a minor who has reached the age of majority; But the minors will be able to tell before they reach the age of consent if the consent of the legislator.

(2) a person ordered by the court to be an incompetent or quasi-incompetent person; When the person is free of any disqualification or quasi-incompetence. If the consent of the guardian

(3) The person who intentionally made a mistake. Or scammed Or threatened

(4) An insane person who has committed a void under Section 30, while his or her life is not

If the person who made the void law before the death of the void. The descendants of such individuals may be told to clear the void.

Section 176 of the void. It is considered null and void. And the party back to the original. If it is impossible to return it. To get compensation for damages.

If anyone knows or should know what is a void. When told to clear. The person is aware that it is void. The day that I know or should know it is void.

No right to claim, but to return to the original position under paragraph one. One year after the date of the cessation of void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 19696/2557.

The defendant was aware that the construction dispute was not properly licensed in 2006, but the defendant never asked for additional permission to obtain a construction permit. If the defendant is honestly wishes to sell the disputed building in accordance with the condition of construction is not properly authorized. Should be notified to the plaintiff before the contract to buy. If the plaintiff is the owner of the building, then the plaintiff may be suspended use of the building dispute or be fined at a high rate. And getting more permission later is tricky and time consuming. The plaintiff agreed to enter into a contract with the defendant to make a condition that the defendant must deal with the construction permit right. And no penalty, the plaintiff has to deposit a lot. I believe that the plaintiff did not know that the building construction dispute is not right under the construction permit before the contract is traded. The contract of sale of the plaintiff is a major mistake in the property dispute that construction is required by the construction permit. The plaintiff made a void by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 157, paragraph one, when the plaintiff to clear the void of karma, but it is invalid as the first paragraph of Section 176 paragraph one, the defendant must return. Deposit with interest to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13764/2557.

The plaintiff signed a contract to buy land to sell the land and the dispute with the defendant, and then repair the building dispute. By the rear of the path. Create a wall off the corridor. Create more mezzanine floor. The height of the building is 4-story steel frame construction from the 4th floor up, so it is believed that on the date of the contract to buy and sell the land and the disputes. The defendant did not inform the plaintiff that the 2 floor floor is floating, the defendant has not demolished to complete the order of the Chom Thong office. If the defendant told the plaintiff to know this fact. It is unlikely that the second plaintiff will dare to fill many buildings and spend a lot without scrutiny before. The plaintiff has a contract to purchase land and commercial disputes from the defendant by mistake in the properties of the property, which is usually considered a matter. The contract is to sell it as a void under Section 157, even if the plaintiff did not clear the void. But this lawsuit has the same effect as to clear the void karma. The sale and purchase agreement is void. The parties must return to their original position under Section 176 paragraph one, each party may not rely on the contract to buy and sell as an excuse to claim damages against each other. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff, the only refund of land and commercial disputes. Only the plaintiff can not claim any damages. From the defendant.

Section 177. If a person has the right to clear the void under

Section 175, any person Has ratified the void It is considered complete at first. However, this will not affect the rights of third parties.

Section 178 Dilution or ratification of a void. It can be done by expressing the intention to the other party, who is a definite person.

Section 179 Ratification of the void. It is only after the time that the cause of the void is exhausted.

The person ordered by the court to be an incompetent. Quasi-incompetent person A voidable act under Section 30 shall be ratified by a voidable person upon the recognition of that void after that person has ceased to be an incompetent. Quasi-incompetent Or at the time of the person's death is not a case.

The successor of the person doing the void. To ratify a void from the time the legal act is dead. Unless the right to clear the void of the dead has ended.

The provisions of paragraphs one and two shall not apply. If the ratification of a void is made by a representative Kindergarten or guardian

Section 180. After the time for ratification under Section 179, any one of the following circumstances shall arise in relation to a void by action of a person who has the right to declare a void under Section 175 if it is not reserved. What is considered to be a ratification.

(1) has fully or partially repaid all

(2) has been called for repayment.

(3) New debt has been converted.

(4) has been insured for the debt.

(5) All or part of the right or liability has been transferred.

(6) Other acts which have been ratified.

Section 181. The void shall not be declared after the expiration of one year from the time when it may be ratified. When ten years have elapsed since the act was made void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6350/2541.

The seller will have a contract to sell all 8 plots of land while the MPs are normal. But during that time. The land must be transferred to the buyer. According to the contract to sell, it appears that MPs have been ordered by the court to be incompetent and to be in the kindergarten of the petitioner, so when the petitioner who is a kindergarten contractor will be traded by the registration of the transfer of ownership of all 8 plots of land. Selling to the buyer. The petitioner must obtain prior court approval. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 28 paragraph two and 1574 (1) in conjunction with Section 1598/18, paragraph two. It is a void, but the petitioner as a kindergarten who has the right to clear the void does not tell the buyer to clean. The petitioner has also expressed his intention to make the land transaction law. The court ordered the adjudicator to be incompetent. And in the kindergarten of the petitioner. The petitioner contacted the land authorities and filed a petition with the court for a legal transfer of land ownership. This circumstance can be considered that the petitioner has ratified the contract to trade a void by giving the intention to the buyer. The other party under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 178. The contract will be completed in the first place under Section 177, which binding the petitioner must comply with the contract. The petitioner must proceed to transfer the ownership of the land to the buyer. This is why the petitioner must follow. Terms in the contract will be traded. The other two sons of the MPs, who told the Court of First Instance that the details of this case were not objectionable, and the court has taken into account the price of such land transaction, and found that the purchase price of land is reasonable and considered. It will not allow the solicitor to sell the land, which may damage the property. Therefore, the sale of land to the buyer under the contract will be considered. There are necessary and appropriate. It is also beneficial to. I like that the court will order the petitioner as the preserver of the MP. Yes (2nd meeting, 1998)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2049/2538.

The defendant did not provide that the void was declared within the time prescribed by the law. The defendant's assertion that it has cleared the act to the plaintiff before the date of transfer to the land dispute. A contract to buy and sell a void at the land office is an offense that is not a matter that is not already in the court. Even on the day the defendant will register the transfer of land disputes to the plaintiff because the defendant's wife objected that the land dispute is their own half, but the defendant intend to comply. When it was done after the time when the cause of the void was not without controversy, the defendant made clear that the defendant has ratified the void, and then implicitly defendant. The defendant filed a defense of the case by a clear void, but when the defendant has ratified it, then can not say it.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8612/2550.

Although the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 865, paragraph two will give the insurer the right to wash the void, but the life insurance contract is a two-party act. To clear the void, the intention must be given to the other party, who is a person who can be determined by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 178. When the defendant wants to clear the void of life insurance, the plaintiff must show the intention to the three beneficiaries, which is. The other party. Not only show evidence that they have used the right to say. The intention to commit a person who is not present is considered effective from the time the intention to the intent of the plaintiff to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 169. The defendant has a letter to clear the void to the plaintiff. All three in Phichit Province by mail. The intent is to show the person who is distant by distance. The void is effective from the time the book reaches the plaintiff. From the date of the defendant, the information to be cleared on August 6, 1997 to the date of the intention to clear the void, effective on September 7 or September 8, 1997, one month after the date of the defendant. I will clear the void that karma. The void of the defendant's void did not like. The defendant did not use the right to declare the life insurance under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 865, paragraph two, the defendant is liable for the pledge of life, the three plaintiffs.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10258/2558.

      Plaintiffs only need to mortgage the land disputes with the house dispute, signed in the power of not writing to the mortgage to the defendant to complete the message to sell. The registration is that the plaintiff sold to the defendant that the plaintiff and A. did not go to the land office on the day of registration. I do not agree to sell and do not receive any money for sale. The power of attorney is fake. The transaction law between the plaintiff and the defendant shall not be deemed to have occurred, the defendant must return the land dispute and disputes to the plaintiff. And the court must judge the revocation of this law. Although the plaintiff signed the power of attorney without filling it. The plaintiff's negligence, but the defendant was aware of the forgery of the power of attorney. And as a user of the power of the defendant, the defendant is not a transferor in good faith, the second defendant intended to trade the property, which is the object of the transaction is the land and the house with the A. and the defendant pointed out that. What is the essence of trading. Did not intend to buy land disputes and disputed house in any way. The defendant 2 entered into an act of land dispute with the disputed house because of the defendant A. and the defendant was a fraudulent fraud in the property which is the object of the act. Significant wrong in what is the substance of the act is void under Section 156 of the Civil and Commercial Code, the second defendant must return the land disputes and disputes to the plaintiff and the court must revoke the registration. Register this law as well. In such cases. Whether the defendant 2 in good faith or not, the defendant has no way of ownership of disputed land and house disputes. Section 2 that the defendant claimed that the second defendant was entitled to compensation may be damaged or not, it is a matter of going. The defendant from the defendant and the defendant is not a reason for the second defendant to land in disputed and disputed.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2270/2558.

       The plaintiff sued the plaintiff to buy land from the defendant. When checking the land line, it appears. The house was built in some other land. It's a mistake in property. The plaintiff has a written notice of termination of the contract to the defendant and asked the defendant to refund. But the defendant did not return the money. The plaintiff has a dispute with the defendant. The plaintiff sued. The fact that. The disputes the plaintiff purchased from the defendant were located on some purchased land and partially Set on the land of others. Case that the plaintiff entered into a land sale agreement with the construction of the wrong. In the properties of the property. Normally considered as essence. If not important, the void would not be done. The contract is void under Section 157 of the plaintiff has the right to declare intention to terminate the contract to the defendant, the seller and. When the plaintiff to terminate the contract. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 805/2552.

       The principal of the check is the amount of debt comes from the creditor who is bound to pay the debt to the creditor of the debtor, and the creditor has paid the debt on behalf of the debtor. Prior to the date the debtor was ordered by the court to strictly enforce the bankruptcy. Previous Story of Nonthaburi Provincial Court And the creditor did not bring such debt to repay the debt to the official receiver. Until the Nonthaburi Provincial Court orders to approve the pre-bankruptcy of the debtor. The reorganization obliges all creditors to repay debt. But it is binding on the old debt of the creditor who has paid the debt instead of the debtors and consequently the debtors are released from the debt only. But after the debtor has been released from bankruptcy. The debtor has made a dispute to the creditor by agreeing to pay the principal amount in the check 22,750,000 baht that the debtor debt is real and the debtor has not paid back to the debtors. The debt dispute is a legal act that the debtor made voluntarily. Directly to the legal relationship with creditors that will use the money back to creditors and Effective legal compliance. It is not a document to receive debt by bank check which the debtor gave to the creditor during the debtor is still in bankruptcy, which acts on the business and property of the debtor to breach. Bankruptcy Act, 2483, Section 24, which is void. The creditor is entitled to receive the settlement of the dispute in the amount of Baht 22,750,000.

       The agreement on the interest that the debtor will pay to the creditors at the rate of 15 percent per annum from April 24, 2532 until the payment. It is an agreement to pay interest back to the creditor to the date the debtor ordered the payment. Granted to the creditors on April 24, 1989, during which the debtor was in a bankruptcy. The agreement is considered to be a check payable to the creditor to the creditor. Void to the interest receivable from the debtor. This interest agreement. It is void as well, and by the circumstances of the case. The parties intend to provide the principal amount that the debtor will reimburse to the creditors in the amount of Baht 22,750,000, complete from the void interest agreement. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 173. The creditor is entitled to receive interest payment between the default rate of 7.5 percent per annum of the principal of 22,750,000 baht from August 15, 1999, which is the date of the settlement of the dispute until the date the Court ordered. The debt of the debtor.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 404/2552.

There are issues that need to be resolved. The plaintiff sued the right to file a lawsuit. The Central Tax Court did not make a ruling on this issue and did not like it. The Law on Establishment of Tax Courts and Procedures for Taxation, BE 2528 (1985), Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 142, paragraph one of the Supreme Court, the Tax Department, should be discarded. According to the Act Establishing the Tax Court and the Judicial Procedure for Taxation, BE 2528 (1985), Section 293 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 243 (1)

The plaintiff sued by the right to request the transfer of rights under the tax card, which the third defendant made an agreement with the plaintiff. If corruption occurs in the claim for compensation for taxes and damage to the plaintiff in any case, the third defendant agrees to plaintiff's liability in all respects without dispute. The right to bring a lawsuit under the third defendant to the plaintiff before the transfer of rights under the tax dispute. So it is not right to exercise your rights in bad faith.

When the third defendant filed a request for the transfer of rights under the tax card, promised that if corruption occurs. Reimbursement of tax And damage to the plaintiff in any case, the third defendant agrees to plaintiff's liability in no way contradictory. It is an agreement that is not a law, and not an agreement. Page is the message except the plaintiff is liable for fraud. The seriousness of their negligence under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 173 and not contrary to the peace or morals of the people. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150 is enforceable, the third defendant is liable under the contract provided to the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff under the contract is not age specific, so the age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4541/2550.

The plaintiff sued the defendant to pay a sum of money according to the four disputed checks, the plaintiff and the defendant to enter into a compromise agreement. And the Thonburi Civil Court sentenced the case to the end. The outcome of the compromise agreement will make the plaintiff's claim to the claim. Both defendants pay the debt using the four disputed checks to the end. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 852, the plaintiff has the right to demand that the defendant to pay debts under the compromise agreement, only the defendant will not pay the debt under the compromise agreement, the plaintiff has no right to. Both defendants claim to be liable for the debt of four disputed checks, so the two defendants have issued four disputed checks to use the money so it is. The result is bound to the court before the final judgment. The case is dissolved. Section 7 The right to bring a criminal case against the plaintiff and the plaintiff will be suspended by the plaintiff. Criminal Procedure Code Section 39 Even in the compromise agreement, Clause 3 shall specify as an exception. The compromise agreement has no effect on this criminal case. However, the agreement is intended to be contrary to the provisions of the law expressly void in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150 and the agreement can be separated from the agreement compromise agreement. In other words. The compromise agreement in such civil case is void. According to Article 173 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2058/2549.

Plaintiff defendant entered into a contract to buy and sell land title deeds No. 15658 and agreed to purchase land dispute, which is adjacent to the land on May 20, 1976. Later, on December 19, 1978, the defendant registered the transfer of title deed no. 15658 The plaintiff under the contract to buy and sell land, which is repayable to the plaintiff. It is the debt. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/14 (1) The age of stumble stop. The time before that is not counted in the age and start counting the age of the new cause since the age of the stumble ceases, according to Civil and Commercial Section 193/15. Especially the age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, and began counting the new age from December 20, 1978. On October 27, 2530, the defendant made a letter that received 50,000 baht. The text in the letter indicates that the defendant also has to transfer ownership of land in the street to the plaintiffs. It is a letter of credit. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/14 (1), causes the interruption age to stop again. The time elapsed is not counted in age. And starting from the age of 18 October 2530 onwards, which is until October 22, 1997, the plaintiff sued the case is not more than 10 years, the plaintiff's case is not terminated.

The void can not be ratified, and any one of them has the right to void the void. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 172, paragraph one, the problem that the contract to buy and sell land dispute is void or not. It is a problem of public peace. The defendant will not raise this issue, said the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. The defendant also has the right to raise this issue, said the Supreme Court has complied. Code of Civil Procedure, Section 249, paragraph two. Even disputed land is part of the road in the village where the defendant is responsible for the allocation of land and is in the mortgage to benefit the land allocated in accordance with the Announcement of the Revolution 286, but the only mortgage. But the owner of the property must accept certain actions that affect their property or to refrain from exercising certain rights. The ownership of the property for the benefit of other real estate. And the proprietor of any property is prohibited, which will cause the benefits of the reduction or reduction of convenience. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1387 and 1389 only, the owner of the property remains the proprietor. There is no law prohibiting property owners to sell or sell the transfer of ownership in any way. The defendant as the land dispute is entitled to sell the land dispute. The contract to buy and sell the land dispute is not void. Defendant must transfer the land dispute to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3072/2547.

While Mr. A. made an engagement with Ms. Miss, Ms. B. was not yet 17 years old, aged only 15 years, the engagement violates the provisions. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1435, paragraph one, will void under Section 1435, paragraph two. In addition, Section 172 paragraph two stipulates that if the property must be returned from the void. The provisions on Lapidary shall apply. When the facts do not appear that the plaintiff is not 17 years old, the defendant and Ms. BP have to return the engagement and dowry to the plaintiff under Section 412 and 413, the plaintiff will be arbitrarily settled under Section 407 not so. The plaintiff, the defendant, the father and mother of Mr. A. and Ms. B. made a memorandum after Mr. A. and Ms. Brian quit living as husband. The defendant agreed to return the dowry and engagement to the plaintiff. It is debt-free and enforceable. It is against the public order or morality of the people.

Remarks by the resolution of the 4/2547

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10669/2546.

Land disputes are in the land reform area and between the defendant filed a request for benefits, so it is prohibited to the person who received the right by the reform of agricultural land to divide or transfer the rights to land to others under the Act. Agricultural land reform, 2518, Section 39. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract to buy and sell land disputes are expressly prohibited by law. It is void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150, the contract will buy and sell the land dispute is void. Will not cause any claim, the plaintiff is not entitled to a penalty from the defendant, because it is not the result of breach of contract. But the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 172, paragraph two, provided that the return of property caused by void. The provisions of the Code of Appeal of the Code shall apply to the provisions of Section 412 that if the property is a good fortune. For a certain amount You must return the full amount. The lower court judges the two do not judge. It is not a judgment outside the law.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2425/2545.

The plaintiff sued the defendant was the signature of the check payable to bank A. dated June 5, 1997 amounting to 691,960 baht to pay the debt to the plaintiff. The claim is based primarily on the charge that when the check is due. The plaintiff brought the check to the bill. But the bank refused to pay checks. And there are requests for the defendant to pay the amount on the check. The lecture is complete. What is the checkout? What is the debt. And lawful The details are not in the class. The plaintiff sued not covered. Before the defendant to repay the debt dispute. Defendants have paid the plaintiff a total of 6 times to repay the mortgage to redeem 5 times, each debt is not enough to strip off all debts. All outstanding interest must be deducted before payment. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 329, paragraph one and the defendant to pay unlawful interest is to repay arbitrarily. They know that they have no obligation to pay. Defendant can not claim or return to the defendant's arrears under Section 407, although the dispute has a debt in the void included. The plaintiff also has the right to claim the original debt, which is completely separate from the void. Do not check all disputes are void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 523/2545.

The transfer of shares has been signed by the defendant and the plaintiff. It is considered as evidence in the transfer of shares. When all the shares of the Company are listed and have not been issued. The transfer of such shares must comply with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1129, paragraph two of the form that if not written and signed by the transferor with the transferee. There is at least one witness to sign the handwriting and it is void. When the share transfer agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant does not sign the witness, the transfer of such shares is void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6759/2544.

The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract to buy and sell land dispute in the year. In 1993, however, the defendant was granted a land allocation permit by the Land Allocation Board in 1995, so that while the defendant allocated land in the project to issue to the plaintiff and the general public. The defendant has not received a permit to allocate land. Violation of the Announcement of the Revolutionary Commission No. 286, No. 10, Article 35, but the action of the defendant is a matter for the state to take control of the defendant or the person who will allocate land to carry out the utilities to meet the government requirements. The convenience of land buyers only. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract to buy and sell the land disputes. And according to the contract to buy and sell the land disputes, it does not appear that the purpose is explicitly prohibited. By law, it is impossible or contrary to the public order or good morals. Will make a void in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150, the defendant did not act as a scam, the plaintiff must enter into a contract to buy and sell the land disputes with the defendant. The defendant has not been granted a land allocation while the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract to buy and sell the land dispute. Although the defendant did not notify the plaintiff was not aware that it is a scam of the defendant to make a contract to sell the land dispute is void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 159 contract to buy and sell land disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant. Lawful

Despite the agreement to buy land disputes, the plaintiff is scheduled to pay. 20 per month and the remaining payment on the date the defendant registered the transfer of ownership to the plaintiff. But the circumstances that the plaintiff and the defendant treated each other as a grace for each other to determine the time each other must deal with each other under the contract to buy and sell the land dispute. It is not a matter for the other parties to breach the contract as soon as possible. But the plaintiff paid the 16th installment to the defendant then pay the next installment to the defendant to 20 more until the defendant warned the plaintiff to pay the remaining within 7 days from the date of receipt. The plaintiff does not comply. It can be considered that the plaintiff is a breach of contract. Defendant has the right to terminate the contract to buy and sell the land dispute and forfeit the plaintiff's payment to the defendant already under the contract to buy and sell the land dispute.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2482/2539.

The plaintiff agreed to raise the dispute to the defendant by the defendant to pay the debt to the plaintiff as the plaintiff is equivalent to the plaintiff to transfer the land dispute to another in accordance with the meaning of the Land Code Section 31, then the agreement is a legal act. The purpose is to be expressly prohibited by law and will be null and void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 113 (Section 150, as amended) and The agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant void the plaintiff, which is a stakeholder, shall have the right to remove the null and void as claimed by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 172, first paragraph as amended, the plaintiff sued the case. The right to dishonesty.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9091/2538.

Dispute land is a certificate of land (Miss. 3g.) The provisions are not transfer within 10 years under the Land Code Section 31 so that the defendant plaintiff signed a contract to buy and sell to transfer the land dispute to the defendant within the deadline. Do not transfer is a legal act whose purpose is to be expressly prohibited by contract law to buy and sell is void. Even after signing the contract, there will be an Act Amending the Land Code (No.2), BE 2521, Section 4, Section 31 of the Land Code. The same applies to the land in case such a case. So, when the contract to buy will be void. Mortgage contract to buy and sell the contract can not be enforced because the mortgage agreement is only for complete debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 707, including Section 681, so it can not enforce the contract of purchase, sale and mortgage contracts. When the purchase agreement is void It must be enforced by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 172, paragraph two, that is, in return of property caused by void action, the provisions of the aphids shall apply to force the defendant to return the land dispute to the plaintiff and receive payment of land disputes brought to the plaintiff. Placed at the office. Although the plaintiff's claim for redemption is a lawsuit without any capital, but when the defendant warrants that it has entered into a contract to buy and sell the plaintiff's land dispute. And the plaintiff to give up the custody of the defendant, then argued custody. The Court of First Instance determines whether the plaintiff has the right to redeem the mortgage land disputes. That's the whole point. Plaintiff's defendant has entered into a contract to buy or not to sell the defendant's statement. The lawsuit has no capital, so it becomes a lawsuit.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8429/2538.

This case, even if the defendant plaintiff did not dispute the verdict in respect of the revocation of the land sale contract and the list of land disputes between the defendant plaintiff. But the plaintiff still appealed the dispute, the Court of First Instance on the issue of the case of damages and interest thereafter. Can not make the case to the story. This is not the case. The plaintiff will file a request to the Court of First Instance to issue a statement that the verdict is the end, then find it. The defendant's action is to deceive the plaintiff's consent to transfer the land to the defendant. As a scam to the plaintiff, the land sale agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is a void. When the plaintiff sued to be revoked, the plaintiff has been told to clear the void. The land sale agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was void from the outset. The result is that the parties return to their original position. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 138, at the end of the defendant, the defendant must transfer the land back to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is required to return the land plots received from the defendant to the defendant and the return of property caused by void. That's a lot of money. There is no law that requires a refund. And this case, the defendant did not file a charge or request the plaintiff to pay back the land plus interest. The court can not judge the plaintiff to pay interest in the amount of land that the plaintiff must return to the defendant. According to the plaintiff's plaintiff's case, the plaintiff sued for the revocation of the lawsuit caused by the defendant's scam. Not enforce the defendant to pay the debt or exercise the right to terminate the contract to the plaintiff is entitled to another part of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 213, the last paragraph and Section 391 paragraph when the fact that the act is void. And the plaintiff has already cleared. It can be voided early. It does not have the same effect on the original. And the contractor back to the original Civil and Commercial Code 138. The original provisions of this provision is to receive compensation for damages, but only if the return to their original position. The plaintiff has no right to claim damages from the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6450/2537.

The bankruptcy of the defendant, 3, effective from the date the court ordered the custody of the defendant. Bankruptcy Act, 1940, Section 62. When the court ordered the defendant of the third defendant, the sole agent has the authority to deal with the property of the third defendant to collect and receive money or property that will fall to the defendant. 3 or which the third defendant will receive from others. Compromise or prosecute or fight any lawsuit regarding the property of the defendant under Section 3 of the Act, Section 22, when the third defendant must be sentenced to be bankrupt. The property of the third defendant falls under the jurisdiction of the official receiver in accordance with the provisions of the plaintiff, which has the right to dispute the land dispute with the third defendant, but by the means provided in. Bankruptcy Act, 1940, Section 122 and if the plaintiff was damaged. Because the official receiver not accept the rights of the contract. The plaintiff is entitled to claim for damages.

The plaintiff did not follow. Bankruptcy Act, 1940, Section 122. Both the plaintiff is not a creditor who filed a request for payment in the case that the third defendant must be sentenced to bankruptcy. The plaintiff returned to the defendant to the third defendant after the court ruled that the third defendant is a bankrupt and has not survived the bankruptcy by the third defendant has no power to deal with their own property or business at that time. The land dispute is transferred to the second defendant, which is a third party and if the land dispute is the third defendant, it is the authority of the official receiver to revoke the transfer of land disputes to return to the property division of the third defendant under the Act. Bankruptcy in 1940, the plaintiff is not a stakeholder in the land dispute to lift the void of void. 1. The transfer of disputed land to the defendant while the two defendants, one was sentenced to bankruptcy. The plaintiff has no power to sue.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3072/2536.

When the court ruled that any person is a bankrupt, as long as there is no order to cancel the bankruptcy. The person has no power to do anything about his property. Except for the order or approval of the court, the receiver, the asset manager or the creditor meeting. Section 24, if the breach of the law is void. The term "stakeholders" under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 133, formerly (Section 172 new) means those who will benefit or lose benefits. If the law says that the void is invalid or not. When the plaintiff sued the four defendants expelled from the land dispute, claiming that the plaintiff's father bought the four disputed land. Bankruptcy Subsequently, the four plaintiffs died. Disputed land is an inheritance to the four plaintiffs. And the defendant to fight that the plaintiff's father bought the land dispute from MPs, while MP is bankrupt. Act of void the four plaintiffs have no power to sue the defendant. The defendant is the beneficiary of the land dispute between the parties. With the father of four plaintiffs void, the defendant would like to raise the waste of voidable claims.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 179/2536.

The debtors do not know that any way to the creditors disadvantage. Legal acts are not invalid because the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237 only. Creditors prefer to request the court to withdraw only.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 779/2535.

August 1 land sales contract is not made in writing and registered with the competent authority is void. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 456, but the seller has delivered the land to the buyer, then the buyer has the right to occupy the land. Land purchase agreement is void. The buyer can not be cited as the cause of the breach of the contract from the seller.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 137/2535.

The defendant sold the dispute, which is a land pledge to the plaintiff without a written contract and registered with the competent. Void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 456, paragraph one, but the plaintiff had possession of the dispute after the purchase of the defendant. The plaintiff was entitled to possession of the transfer under Section 1377,1378 to be made in accordance with the act of the defendant, but the defendant did not have the legal act in which the plaintiff sued the plaintiff to enforce the plaintiff to file a dispute.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5683/2534.

When the petitioner's petition was described, that appeared in Miss. 3 that the land had the name of the defendant. Because the land is in the land reform. The law requires land owners can not own up to 50 rai each. The petitioner agrees to put the defendant in place of the petitioner. The agreement is a violation of the law would be null and void under Section 113 of the agreement. The land is therefore the defendant's name in Miss. 3, the court likes to consider the petition. The decision of the petitioner can not be made before the inquiry.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1131/2533.

The defendant purchased the land dispute, which is Miss. 3 of the plaintiff, without making a written and registered with the competent official will void by. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 456, first paragraph and 115, but it is completely legal basis as otherwise provided by Section 136. If the plaintiff has given possession of the land dispute to the defendant, which was done under Section 1378, according to the circumstances assumed that the parties intentionally. To complete a transfer of possession with compensation. There is no law that requires a book to show. The court hears witnesses in lieu of witnesses. Code of Civil Procedure Section 94

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3520/2532.

Dispute land is a government issued a certificate to the plaintiff under the mass of land law, Section 58 bis prohibited transfer within 10 years is a land that the state has not given the custody to the plaintiff. There is no custody. Civil and Commercial Code or the Land Code. Therefore, the plaintiff may not transfer the custody. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1377 or Section 1378 The plaintiff sold and handed over the land dispute to the plaintiff's father within the time limit transfer. Later, the plaintiff's father had to sell and give possession to the defendant to take possession of the food to be transferred to the defendant after the transfer of the period has not passed. The defendant can not take care of the fight against the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1175/2532.

The right to deny the void of the heirs of the incompetent or the person who has made a deliberate act of war. Section 137 of the Civil and Commercial Code shall be applicable only if the incompetent person or the person who has committed the intentional act of war has died without having been told to wash the void before death. So when the plaintiff's father is still alive, even when doing the legal act of insanity. The plaintiff is only a successor. The plaintiff is not a heir to have the right to clear the void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4987/2531.

The plaintiff gave the employee of the agricultural cooperative, the defendant brought the plaintiff's land to register the pledge of the plaintiff's loan to recover from the defendant, but the plaintiff returned to the plaintiff's land to register the mortgage lender, it is wrong for the plaintiff. The mortgage of the land because it occurs because the plaintiff is wrong in the essence of the act is void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 119.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3431/2531.

The plaintiff loan the defendant by the lease of the building and the request for transfer of lease rights to defend the defendant as a guarantee. There is an agreement that if the plaintiff breached the contract, the defendant transferred the right to lease the building immediately after the plaintiff breached the contract. The defendant transferred the lease as a defendant. When the plaintiff's defendant did not agree to the rental price of the dispute, which is the property that the defendant accepted the debt as repayment of the loan at the market price of the property at the time of transfer of the lease. Contrary to the message as provided in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 656, paragraph two and void under paragraph three. The transfer of the leasehold rights of the disputed buildings to the defendant is void and is contrary to the public order of the Court of Appeal will cause the legal act to invalidate the deed.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 344/2531.

Adoption by a spouse without the consent of the other spouse is incomplete, does not create the relationship and the legal rights as the adopter and the adopted child in any way. The plaintiff sued to withdraw the registration of the defendant was adopted by the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff, the spouse. The lawsuit was filed to show that the status of the defendant and the change did not change because of the adoption of such incomplete adoption. Yes, it is a claim to revoke the adopted status with the adopted child. The case is not subject to the provisions on age, according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 163 and Section 164, and when there is no provision of law that the plaintiff may prosecute such a case. The plaintiff has a right to sue the lawsuit.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1570/2530.

The petitioner filed a petition. And the name of the district, but the local registry can not do. Singer likes to continue to follow. Act of Title 2505 is not the case to exercise the right to court.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 965/2530.

The act is void, it is considered that no legal action is not required to revoke the law. The lower court judges to revoke the law and registration of ownership transfer. It means only to force the delisting of registered items that are caused by the act of nullity.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3485/2529.

Before the exchange of car. The defendant has checked the evidence of the car has asked. Vehicle identification number in the auto body matches the car registrations. And the photo on the ID card that the applicant brought to the show is the same as the applicant who claims that the owner of the car does not appear that the car registration is suspected of fraud. There is no reason to suspect that the applicant is not a car owner. Even the defendant will not check the evidence to register the police department. It can not be considered that the defendant made the exchange of cars by serious negligence. Do not forbid in order to remove the imperfection or invalidate it to their advantage. The defendant has the right to free car disputes or automobile dispute. To exercise their right in good faith The defendant is not liable for such sequestration.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3484/2529.

Before making an act of car exchange, the defendant checked the evidence of the car with the applicant than the number of the car in the body of the car corresponding to the car registration and photos on the ID card that the applicant presented to the applicant. The owner of the car does not appear to be registered as a fake or there is a reasonable suspicion that the applicant is not a car owner, even if the defendant does not examine the evidence. The registration of the Police Division does not hold that the defendant made the act of exchanging cars by mistake with gross negligence, not forbidden in order to remove the imperfection or invalidate that use to benefit. The defendant shall have the right to freeze a car dispute or a disputed automobile license is in good faith, the defendant shall not be liable for such attachment.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2409/2526.

The plaintiff signed a land sale agreement with two plots to the defendant, the substance that the plaintiff seller will grant a permit to build a transport station of the transport company. Limited and will grant a license to a road linking with the Asian Highway along the front of the land if the seller can not license and transfer the name to the buyer under such transaction by February 28, 2521. Seller agrees to adjust. Take ownership of the land under the contract to the buyer without the buyer paying the remainder. When it comes to the construction of the bus terminal, the fact is that the bus station is under construction. The transport company can not issue a construction permit. In this case, the penalty for the object is not possible. The license for the construction of roads from the land connected to the Asian Highway. Get permission to build a bus station. But even if the plaintiff has to grant a permit to the first defendant has passed away, then the defendant has not yet constructed a bus station. The plaintiff will be the plaintiff to obtain a license to the defendant at the time specified in the contract. The plaintiff will pay the debt in this case is impossible because of circumstances that occurred after the debt. And the plaintiff is not responsible. The plaintiff was released from the payment of the defendant, the defendant has no right to adjust the plaintiff and the two defendants must jointly pay the land price lawsuit. The liability of the defendant is repayment under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 369. The plaintiff has not transferred the land under the contract of sale to the defendant. It does not appear that the plaintiff has requested repayment in this regard. So it is considered that the defendant is not. The defendant is not liable to pay interest. When the defendant settled the unpaid land. The Supreme Court shall adjudicate to the plaintiff to transfer the land under the contract of sale that has not yet been transferred because it is repayment under the contract of remuneration (cited in Supreme Court judgment 2430/2516).

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3880/2525.

Land transfer is the transfer of property. Owners have the power to sell. Rights of the defendant with the land claim that the defendant has the opportunity to buy land that the defendant rented before the other contractor does not bind the land if the landlord has a contract with the defendant would like to say it. The sale of land between the plaintiff and the landowner is not the case where the object is expressly prohibited by law. Or to obstruct the public order or morality of the people in any way. The law is not invalid.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2377/2523.

Owning a newspaper, the owner must have the qualifications required by law. And must ask permission to the printing official by law. Violation of the printing act may result in criminal penalties. It is a must do. The agent is the owner of the newspaper instead of the search. The contract that the plaintiff set the defendant to hold a license to own newspapers instead of the body is a legal act that is prohibited by law. And to obstruct the public order is a void of karma. The court can not enforce the defendant to comply with the plaintiff's request.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2619/2522.

The investigator ordered the release of the accused temporarily by the amount of money the insurer is liable for compensation when the insurance contract exceeds the amount of checks. Violation of the Act on offenses arising from the use of checks, 2497 Section 5 (2), is only an act that exceeds the authority of the investigating officer. To enforce the guarantor only as authorized by the law is that the amount of the check does not make the contract contains objects that are expressly prohibited by law to make the act void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1530/2520.

The contract has a message. Plaintiff's defendant agreed to sell the house with all the buildings. The buyer paid the price to the seller in accordance with the agreed amount already signed on the contract signing date is important as follows: The contract is a complete purchase agreement. There is no text to show that it is only a contract to buy and sell, which the parties will have to continue. When not registered with the competent official. It is void in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 456, the plaintiff will claim a null and void as a lawsuit.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 963/2519.

The plaintiff's father married the defendant while still a lawful husband of the plaintiff's mother. Even later, the plaintiff's parents will be divorced, the marriage between the father, the plaintiff and the defendant will void. The plaintiff, who is a stakeholder, will claim it. And the nullity can not ratify it. The divorce between the plaintiff's parents later did not affect the marriage between the plaintiff's father and the defendant. Which was invalidated before.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 958/2519.

Defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff with the intention not to plaintiff's criminal proceedings against the defendant's child in the plaintiff's death. The plaintiff agreed with the purpose of the agreement is to suspend the criminal case. Contrary to public order under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 113 of the contract is invalid.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 934/2518.

The affirmation of merit by virtue of moral good or in association. The husband does without the wife's consent. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1473, the person who has been given the right to have a relationship or lawfulness. The defendant is not legally entitled to the exclusion under this section. It is not a void or a void, but only acts that do not like the wife to withdraw. The second testament to the testament is that the first testament to raising property for all spouses has the following effect on the property given to the wife. The little wife received half of her husband's land. Civil and Commercial Code Section 1361,1477 male to buy land to pay less wife. The land is the property between the man and the wife. It is not between the man and the wife.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2610/2517.

Defendant hires plaintiff to investigate the scene. Collection of details and evidence about the land of the defendant has been compromised and the plaintiff employed the complaint or complaint. By allowing the wages to be charged. The contract is a contract of employment, and the contract is not a way for the plaintiffs to file a complaint or grievance on several counts in hopes of getting more wages on those charges. Because of how many complaints will be filed or how many cases will defend the will of the defendant. Will the employer sign the complaint on any charges? The plaintiff determined the wage to the defendant before. The contract is not a contract to promote the defendant as a person. No obstruction to public order or good morals.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3405/2516.

Defendant 1 is the husband of Mrs. B. bought the land dispute in this case, while the defendant is a husband and wife with her husband when the defendant is not a contract between the defendant and her husband made. Before the marriage will show that the land dispute is a private property of the defendant to show that it must be assumed that the land dispute is a sin between the defendant 1 and Mrs. B. When the land passed. The true division of community property of the defendant, one out of her home. It is also heir to the estate crash. The plaintiff is the heirs and the heirs of the testament of Mrs. B. is suing the defendant to share the estate of Mrs. B., which has land dispute included. It is considered that the plaintiff is a stakeholder in the land disputes. When the defendant took the land dispute to the second defendant while disputing the inheritance with the plaintiff by the intention to deceive the acquaintance with the defendant, the two void of this action, the plaintiff is. The interest will be claimed under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 133, with the request to withdraw the null and void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2624/2516.

The parties to the criminal case, whether it is an offense or not. A compromise can be reached with regard to civil damages, which may be legitimate. The law prohibits only a compromise agreement to suspend or abolish non-criminal offenses. The compromise agreement that the defendant made to the plaintiff because the defendant invaded the plaintiff's house at night and indecent indictment, the plaintiff has a message that the defendant is willing to pay the plaintiff to a plaintiff within a certain amount of time, if not to allow the prosecution. Go there It is a contract of compromise to pay damages to the plaintiff in civil. There is no claim for the suspension of criminal prosecution, which is prohibited by law. It is completely usable. Compromise Agreement The law does not require the parties to sign both parties. Although the defendant alone is responsible for the plaintiff is a compromise agreement.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1879/2514.

The plaintiff sued the ground that the second defendant had an alien husband to buy land of the plaintiff to violate the land law. Request that the court judge that the sale of land titles null and void as a result of retrial of the plaintiff's land claims that the defendant 2 has no ground to be claimed under the law.

The plaintiff sued the court for that. The land title deed is null and void. And the plaintiff was paid according to the amount of the dispute. The petition of the plaintiff also asked the plaintiff to return to the land dispute as the same. The case is a claim to return the base.

The lawsuit against the return of the base is not good. The plaintiff must file a claim within one year from the date the plaintiff recognized the right to restore. Or within ten years from the date of the nullity of the right to restore it.

The plaintiff sued the plaintiff to the defendant to the land and the defendant to sell the land to the second defendant, whose husband is an alien. Ask the court to declare that the contract is void. The defendant will file a lawsuit asking the court to show that the ownership of the land. The defendant's original one was not because it was not a plaintiff's counterclaim. But the defendant together.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 619/2514.

The woman has a husband to guarantee the debts of other people, it is considered to be bound to the obligations as prescribed in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 38. If done without the husband's consent, the contract is void. When the husband said that the contract is void, not binding. In such a case, it does not make any promise that the woman has a husband to do it. The woman is still liable for personal debt. To use the personal property of the woman. When it is not enough or does not appear that the woman has a personal property. The creditor shall request the court to separate the part of the woman in accordance with Section 1483 to execute the judgment. The plaintiff can not seize the annuity before the split (9-10 / 2514 conference)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 648/2513.

Defendant agrees to make a loan and agrees to do so in court, resulting in the transfer of the property of one defendant to another from the forced repayment to the plaintiff, the creditor, according to the judgment, the plaintiff did not. May the property of the defendant to pay the debt. It is illegal to commit fraudulent offenses. The plaintiff will damage the property. The offense is as follows. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 422 presumed that the defendant was wrong to have committed a violation of the plaintiff. Will be liable for compensation to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the defendant as the defendant. It is between the two defendants are not bound by the plaintiff. To work together Act between the defendant is void. The plaintiff does not need to sue for revocation.

(First meeting, 3/2512 and 5/2512)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1008/2512.

In the contract construction contract is the duty of the direct contractor to take care of their own interests, so it is necessary to consider themselves. The employer is a person with reasonable evidence that the contractor with the contract or not. The contractor does not perform such duties, it is negligence and risk of their own, so even if others will inform the contractor is not true. The employer is a rich man with a good status, it is not considered that the fraudulent deception of the plaintiff. The contract is not void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 366/2508.

When the contract is void It was not written and registered with the competent official money that the seller received under the contract is a goodbye. The buyer must file a lawsuit. Or within ten years from the time that the right was held.

Posted in: