Section 137. Property means
that the object is shaped.
Section 138. Property means
including property and non-material objects. This may be pricey and may be
considered.
Section 139 Real estate means
that land and property attached to land are permanent or complementary to the
land. And includes property rights relating to land. Or property attached to
the land, or the same as the land.
Section 140 movable property
means property other than real estate. It also includes the rights associated
with the property.
Section 141. Subdivision means
that the property may be separated into parts. Each part has a single image.
Section 142. The property does
not mean that the property can not be separated except for the change of the
property. And it includes the law that can not be divided.
Section 143. Commercial
property means property which can not be regarded as property and which is
transferred in a lawful manner.
Section 144. The acquisition
of property means that part of which, by the condition of property or by the
local customs, is the essence of the property of the property. It can not be
separated from each other unless it destroys, destroys, or makes the property
change shape or condition.
The owner of the property will
have ownership of the property.
Section 145. The perennial is
a part of the land where the wood is located.
A plant or a cereal that can
be harvested at one or several times per year is not a land acquisition.
Section 146. A property
temporarily attached to land or attached to a house shall not be deemed to be a
property of that land or house. This clause shall apply to any house or other
building. The rights of the land of others to exercise the right to build it in
the land.
Section 147. Equipment means
movable property, which is normally endorsed or explicitly owned by the owner
of the property. It is used regularly with property that is presumed to be
beneficial for the maintenance or preservation of presidential property. And
the owner of the property brought into the property that is presided by the
contact or adjustment. Or do any other thing as a property with the property
that is president.
The equipment that separates
the presidents from the property is temporarily absent from the equipment of
the presidency.
The device was dropped to the
presidential property. Unless otherwise stated.
Section 148. The fruit of the
property is ordinary flowers and flowers.
Ordinary fruit means that what
happens naturally to the property. Which is derived from the property. By using
or using the property normally. And can be considered when the lack of
property.
De jure means means property
or other benefits acquired from time to time to the owner of the property from
another for the purpose of using such property. And can be calculated on a
daily or a specified period.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10361/2557.
The plaintiff filed for
divorce from the defendant and asked the judge to split the land to the
plaintiff. The Court of First Instance divided the Marital property, 60 rai of
rubber plantation land and 15 rai of oil palm plantation land dispute to the
plaintiff. Both defendants appeal. During the trial of the Court of Appeal 8,
the plaintiff filed a petition for temporary protection. And the Court of
Appeal 8 ordered the defendant to make a profit accounting income from the land
dispute on a monthly basis. Then the income from the product will be given half
the amount of the total to the court on a monthly basis. The date the defendant
listened to the 8th order of the court until the case is finally reached. Or
the court has ordered otherwise. As a result of the dispute in accordance with
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph one, if the plaintiff
wins the case, the plaintiff shall have the right to receive dividends of the
property of the dispute, which is Marital property. The temporary benefit order
is sought beyond the request in the indictment. It's not a matter outside the
lawsuit.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
988/2559.
Dividends are paid from the
Company's profits to shareholders from time to time in accordance with the
number of shares under Section 1200 and Section 1201. Dividends are the result
of dividends pursuant to Section 148 paragraph three.
When the plaintiff seized the
company's shares within 10 years from the date of the judgment. The seizure
will cover the dividend yield of the property. The plaintiff has the right to
freeze the stock dividend even after 10 years, according to Civil Code Section
271
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2731/2559.
The rent is a flower under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph three. In the seizure of real
estate, the Civil Code Section 304, paragraph two of the provisions to cover
the equipment and flowers of the property. Unless otherwise provided by law.
When there is no other law. The plaintiff led the Enforcement Officer to seize
the land and buildings, which is the property of the defendant to cover the rent,
which is the property of the property. Whether the fruit will be available
before or while the real estate. And the leader does not need to notify the
Enforcement Officer of the existence of the fruit in any way. When the
plaintiff seized the land and buildings within 10 years from the date of the
judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to request the defendant to seize the rent.
This is the fruit of the land and buildings that are seized. Even if the
10-year period has expired, it is no longer possible to terminate the
execution. The plaintiff's law enforcement. Not subject to the Civil Code
Section 271
Judgment of the Supreme Court
463/2550.
The loan agreement, Clause 1,
paragraph two, is that the borrower agrees to pay the interest to the lender on
a monthly basis for a loan at the rate of 19 percent per annum or at a new
interest rate which the lender may change more or less. More than a fixed
interest rate. The borrower agrees to pay interest to the lender at a new
interest rate as announced by the Bank. This contract is an agreement that the
plaintiff has the right to claim interest from the three defendants at the rate
of 19 percent per year from the date of the contract, although not yet
defaulted or breached. Agreement on interest, which is the plaintiff's income
under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph three, although it
appears that in practice, the plaintiff charged interest at the rate of 13
percent per annum and later on. Between the plaintiff's interest rates rise and
fall several times. The last time the plaintiff adjusted interest rates
increased from 7.25 percent per annum to 15 percent per year from December 31,
2001 onwards. It is a plaintiff to benefit the three defendants, in addition to
the agreement, without interest at the rate of 19 percent per year only.
Agreement under paragraph 1, paragraph two, such is not a pre-determined damage
to hold. Penalty under Section 379 and even if Article 3 states that if the
borrower is liable to allow the lender to raise interest rates higher than
prescribed in Clause 1 The interest paid by the plaintiff at the rate of 15
percent per year is not the interest charged by the plaintiff because of the
default of the plaintiff because Article 3 because the plaintiff does not
charge more than the rate specified in contract No. 1, but anyway. Penalties to
the court will have the power to reduce the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
383, paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4586/2551.
According to the plaintiff's
complaint. The villains took away the identification card of the victim 1 and
then made a fake photo of the other person over the photo of the victim 1 in
the ID card, then the villain brought a false ID. Say To deceive the victim 2
and 3 until the SIM card and telephone number of the victim 2 and the
plaintiff's complaint. 2 The police then arrested the defendant with a mobile
phone, which used the wrong number. The phone and SIM card of the second victim
are in the possession of the defendant as a middleman. The defendant took one
mobile phone, phone number and SIM card. The villain by the defendant already
knew that the property acquired from theft, theft and fraud. According to the
indictment, it is obvious. The property of the crime scene is a SIM card. The
second victim, which is a form of property, according to the definition of the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 137 is not the right to use cell phones or
the use of telephone signals alone. The action of the defendant is a fault of
the SIM card.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9743/2558.
While the plaintiff and the
defendant made a compromise agreement. The registrar has ordered the defendant
to stop the insurance and have not announced the defendant to sell the
property. Act of Insurance Act, 1992, Section 52 and the defendant informed the
order and announced it. The defendant entered into a compromise settlement
agreement with the plaintiff. If not, transfer the land to the plaintiff. This
is a violation of Section 54 of the Act. The law is about the peace or morals
of the people. The compromise agreement is void under Section 150
Judgment of the Supreme Court
752 - 780/2554.
The right to lease under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 138 so that the right to claim the rent of
land under the lease of the defendant, which is the right of a lease is a
property of the defendant. Even if it is not a state-based income. Act of Port
Authority of Thailand, BE 2494, Section 39, but it is the property of the
defendant. Is not in the liability of enforcement under Section 14 of the said
Act.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
20875/2056.
Dispute dispute that was taken
to auction the property attached to the land is permanent. It is a real estate
under Section 139, although the land on which the building is located will
belong to the Department of Forestry. It makes the building become movable. The
announcement of the auction to identify the buyer to dismantle or contact the
landowner is a matter that the buyer will choose the property. Related to the
defendant. The mandate of the debtor and the defendant to leave the property
under Section 309 Civil and Commercial Code.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
12772/2555.
The right to lease the land
dispute, which the defendant is a tenant of the property of the plaintiff
between the plaintiff and the defendant, but the transfer of the right to lease
the land dispute with the removal of the second defendant to lease it in the
case that the plaintiff and the defendant will be. Section 1476 (1) to (8) does
not, because the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1476 (3) prohibited the
management of Marital property only. Renting an apartment Find a property that
is Sinai. It does not include the management of leasehold rights, which is not
real estate and not a property that will be considered as real estate in
itself, according to Section 139, so it is the power of the defendant to manage
alone without it. The consent of the plaintiff under Section 1476, paragraph
two, so even if the defendant to transfer the right to dispute the land to the
second defendant by the plaintiff did not know. The plaintiff can not be
revoked as prescribed by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1480.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10651/2553.
The defendant has landed on
his own, according to the Supreme Court ruling that the land plaintiffs both in
good faith. The value of land increased. Is a property that the defendant
acquired without grounds to claim the law. And the two are disadvantageous to
the plaintiff. As a fortune-teller under Section 406, the defendant must return
the land to the two plaintiffs. But when the facts appear. Both plaintiffs have
improved the soil in the land of the defendant for up to 20 years, the soil to
be reclamated into a part of land, which is a real estate under Section 139 so
it can not return the soil. When the plaintiff did not sue the defendant to
return the land. But the defendant used the cost of land reclamation and land
improvement. To be sued for other expenses that made the land of the defendant
has a price under Section 417 of the plaintiff, the plaintiff called the
defendant only the price of land only. But when it comes to the location of
land, land, as well as economic conditions. And the land price while the
plaintiff sued the case. Should allow the defendant to use the price of land
for the plaintiff to increase the two are 1,200,000 baht.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7722/2550.
When the commercial building
of the plaintiff is a property attached to the land is permanent property which
is the property of the Civil and Commercial Section 139, and the leased
property is the side and front of the commercial building, which is the wall
attached to the building. Fixed with commercial buildings, it is a lease of
immovable property under Section 538, which requires that there must be
evidence in writing. Sign the party that is liable. Otherwise, it will not be
enforceable.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8915/2546.
The object that the plaintiff
to build a building is a property in accordance with the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 137. It is not that if the building is to be completed when the
building. The building is attached to the land is permanent, so it is real
estate under Section 139. The plaintiff sold the building to sell real estate.
And the plaintiff building the building to use as a cement plant is the
business of the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff's property in the business. Even
the plaintiff will not use the building.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5423/2541.
The defendant is the landlord
of the victim. The only effect is that the defendant occupied the land in the
condition. Real estate only. When the land is excavated, Turned into a movable
property. And the victim did not give. Possession of the land as a movable
property to the defendant occupying the land is still in the possession of the
victim, the defendant took the soil to sell it fraudulently. Exploitation
Should not be lawful. It is a burglary.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
395/2538.
The land that the defendant
sold to the plaintiff, part of the public domain is reserved for the benefit of
the land, especially as a commercial property, which can not be traded, the
agreement to buy and sell the land and the sale of such parts is prohibited.
The law is void, as the defendant never entered into a sale and purchase
agreement with the land. Chat function is not the first agreement of purchase
and sale contracts or portion thereof that the defendant is liable to the
front.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
15233/2553.
Plaintiff signed a land lease
agreement to build a gas station. The agreement. Upon the expiration of the
land lease agreement. Therefore, upon the expiration of the land lease
contract. Gas stations, as well as fixtures. It is the ownership of land. When
the 9 tanks of oil were buried under the ground and the billboards firmly
attached to the soil. According to the condition is the essence of the business
of selling oil can not be separated from the gas station. In addition to
excavating the surface of the gas station. It is considered that the property
of the gas station is owned by the owner of the gas station. The plaintiff has
no right to call the defendant to return. Oil tank for waste oil. HOW TO
REPLACE oil pump air pump is not considered as the essence of gas stations and
dispensers. It is a vital part of the oil service. It is not fixed on a land or
a gas station. Can move without breaking. It's not a gas station. The plaintiff
has the right to call the defendant to return the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3737/2553.
Even in the trading of
disputed buildings. The applicant and the defendant are not registered with the
competent official. But this building is on land title deed number 7412, which
the defendant made a contract and registered the sale to the singer. Ownership
of land will be the petitioner. The house number 50 is on the land. And the
defendant also made a contract to transfer the building to the petitioner. The
building is a land acquisition, which the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
144, paragraph two, that the owner of the property is the property of the
plaintiff. Such that the plaintiff to seize such a building is a dispute of the
rights. The owner of the property. The applicant has the power to file a
request for release.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5962/2551.
The only land that is home to
the scene without the house. And the home to the plaintiff to the demolition to
rebuild. The home is not a land acquisition and is a movable property. Raising
the house is therefore complete and must be made in writing and registered with
the competent official under Section 456, paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2577/2551.
The defendant built a
two-storey concrete house on the plaintiff's land is owned by the plaintiff
with the consent of the plaintiff. The house or house that the defendant built.
Even use the stairs to climb the 2nd floor of the building with the same
stairs. The non-plots of land that the plaintiff owns in accordance with the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 144. The plaintiff has no ownership of the
defendant built a new home. The house is still owned by the defendant.
The defendant built a house or
a house on the land that the plaintiff has a right to give the right to the
ground as a defendant. However, such rights are not made in writing and
registered with the competent authority. It is only the individual right
between the plaintiff's ownership with the defendant. And there is no such
right over the ground. The plaintiff can terminate the advance notice to the
defendant as appropriate under Section 1413
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1723/2551.
Disputes in the land are
registered to the ownership of the defendant's children, without saying that
the land is not raised to disputes with the owner of land, so the ownership of
the disputed house under the Civil and Commercial Code. 144 Even if the
defendant is named in a copy of the disputed registration as a host, it is not
a proprietor of a disputed home under the law. The plaintiff to the defendant
to dismantle the disputed house, but the defendant did not comply. The
plaintiff sued the defendant. The defendant did not own the disputed property.
The defendant is in the house with a dispute as a member of the defendant does
not dispute the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant. And the defendant
has no power to file a plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
339/2551.
Living at A. and the defendant
is a person entitled to use both the plaintiff's plaintiff's estate when the
two defendants dismantled the house, which is already a house. Resident rights
are down. There is no house to be entitled under Section 1402 and Section 1408
of the two defendants planted house instead of the. Permanent death without the
consent of both plaintiffs is not a cause for the resurrection, and is a division
of the land disputes fall into the ownership of land disputes under Section
144, both in the afforestation of land of others. In bad faith under Section
1311, the plaintiff sued the two defendants evicted from the land disputes and
the House held that both plaintiffs as the estate of the President. The house
will remain under section 1311, so when the two defendants are not entitled to
any of the disputed land and houses. Both plaintiffs as inheritance managers,
as required by Section 1719 and Section 1736 paragraph two, have the power to
sue the two defendants without notice.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6194/2550.
The home of the defendant that
the plaintiff was permanently planted permanently on the land, so it is a part
of the land under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 144, paragraph one,
when the land of the President was prohibited by law. The home of the land is
forbidden to transfer. Even the plaintiff will appeal. The plaintiff wants to
seize the disputed property. In the auction, the buyer of the property must
dismantle the house to own. It is possible to do this when the time limit for
transfer is over. When the plaintiff brought the Enforcement Officer to seize
the disputed house in the period prohibited by law transfer. So there is a
reason that the Enforcement Officer will withdraw the confiscation of the house
after it.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4260/2550.
The land was owned by T.
Later, the estate of the T has signed a contract to lease land is 20 years. It
is not considered to be a land acquisition under Section 146 of the plaintiff
purchased land from the estate manager of the T. During the lease period. The
plaintiff is not the owner of the commercial building. But when the land lease
agreement has been completed, the land must be removed from the property,
unless the agrees that the commercial property belongs to the plaintiff. The
property becomes part of the land and the ownership of the plaintiff under
Section 144 paragraph two, when the plaintiff was granted the right to the
building. Townhouse will become the property of the plaintiff and the ownership
of the plaintiff under Section 144 paragraph two, but the owner of a commercial
building without the authority to rent a room disputes over the lease period. When
the land lease agreement expires. The duration of the rent of the excess room
will not fall to the plaintiff under Section 569, when the plaintiff does not
wish to have the defendant in the room longer. But the defendant refused to
leave. It is a violation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the power to sue
the defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10229/2555.
Even the plaintiff will
believe in good faith while making a lease agreement with the landlord that the
landlord is no longer liable to the land to rent to others. The contract is not
binding on the defendant, the plaintiff did not have the power to plant
eucalyptus in the land of the defendant. Eucalyptus can be considered as a
perennial plant. Section 145, paragraph one is a land acquisition of the
defendant, so the defendant is a proprietor of the eucalyptus. When the
defendants cut the eucalyptus tree The actions of the two defendants did not
violate the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no power to sue the two defendants
violate the cut Eucalyptus, which is the land of the defendant and the
ownership of the defendant 1.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7340/2542.
Eucalyptus trees are many
years old. The condition is considered perennial. Even the plaintiff is
claiming that the planted to cut the sale is temporarily planted in the ground.
It takes about 3 to 5 years to cut to use. After the cut, the remaining stump
will break up and grow into a new stem. After about 3 years, it will grow the
same. It shows that the plaintiff intended to plant eucalyptus trees for use
for a long period of time, then grow and then cut the teeth once it ends.
Eucalyptus is a land of disputed land.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2864/2559.
Were selected to enter the
dispute land by entering the state land. The law of land for livelihood, 1968,
which is in accordance with the rules. Procedures and conditions as prescribed
by law. If the offense is committed, the state will recover it at any time.
Dispute land is still a land of the state, not a legacy property of the United States.
Although the land dispute is still a state, but W is allowed to enter the
property, so have the right to land dispute under Section 1367, which can be
used against the people or the general public. And may be in possession of
disputed land if fully complied with. Act of 1911 on property land for the
purpose of living, Section 11 Rights of the land that is beneficial to the land
dispute is similar to the rights over land, which can be transferred and
inherited by the land. Section 1410 and Section 1411 of the death. The right to
take advantage of land disputes is a property of the House of Welfare under
Section 1600 fall to the heirs of the House of Welfare under Section 1599. The
house is planted on the land dispute that the builder is allowed to live and
benefit. From the state, according to the law. House is not a part of the land
dispute under Section 146 of the ownership of the House of Wai on death of the
inheritance to heirs.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2139/2552.
To build a house with other buildings.
Including the dirt road and a stone dam in front of the residence of the
plaintiff. Get the consent and stay in the perception of the landlord. It is
considered that the dirt road and the stone dam in front of the house. Except
under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 146 will not be a land
acquisition. The defendant raised the law, claiming that the dirt road and the
stone dam are arranged in the land. To refuse to pay compensation to the
plaintiff in spite of the cost of the plaintiff in the construction. However,
they can not continue to use the house because they have to move out. Because
the line was the transmission of the defendant's passage, so do not like the
spirit of the defendant. Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand Act, Section
30 aims to allow the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand to consider
paying compensation to property owners who are properly wired through the
transmission line.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1932/2550.
Penalty is the contract that
the debtor to creditors to use a certain amount of penalties when they do not
pay or do not pay properly. But according to the loan agreement, the mind is
that. Borrowers pay interest to the lender on a monthly basis. At the rate of
7.5% per annum for a period of 3 years from the date of the contract. For the
remaining time the two defendants agree to pay interest to the plaintiff at a
new rate announced by the plaintiff's bank. The plaintiff may change more or
lower than the interest rate prescribed above. The plaintiff does not need to
notify the two defendants in advance. The two defendants also made a record
that the loan agreement. Both defendants signed a loan agreement with a rate of
19% per annum, with the memorandum as part of the loan agreement. According to
the contract, the first 3 years from the date of the contract. The plaintiff is
entitled to interest at a fixed rate of only 7.5 percent per annum, the
interest rate will be higher than it can not until the expiration of 3 years
from the date of the loan agreement, and when the expiration of the three
years, the plaintiff. The right to charge interest from both defendants at 19
percent per annum or new interest rates as announced by the plaintiff's bank,
which the plaintiff may change higher or lower rates. Interest as defined
above. The plaintiff does not need to notify the two defendants in advance.
When considering the loan, it is seen that after a period of 3 years, the
plaintiff has adjusted interest rates at the rate of 6.5 percent per annum and
6 percent per annum, without interest at the rate of 19 percent per annum. The
plaintiff provided benefits to the two defendants. So the interest rate of 7.5%
per annum in the initial period is good. And interest at the rate of 6.5
percent per annum and 6 percent per annum after 3 years from the date of the
loan agreement is good. All of the debt that the plaintiff is entitled to all
the contract. Without regard to whether the two defendants are the default or
not. And the flowers under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148,
paragraph three, later, the defendants have defaulted, not repay the debt on
time. The plaintiff has adjusted the interest rate from 6 percent per annum to
13.5 percent per annum from October 17, 2004 onwards and even under the loan
agreement states. If the borrower is liable to allow the lender to raise
interest rates higher than prescribed. Interest has been on since October 17,
2004. Plaintiffs claim from both defendants at the rate of 13.5 percent per
annum, which is less than the rate of 19 percent per annum, which is the rate
agreed in the loan agreement and the loan agreement. The plaintiff did not
charge interest on the loan, but anyhow. The interest rate is 13.5% pa. If it
is too high, the court will have the power to reduce the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 383, paragraph one, the plaintiff charged interest on the two
accounts under the loan. It is legal and legal.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1814/2545.
Defend the lead radio, tape
player. CD player Speakers & Accessories The car was rented to the car for
the benefit of the defendant, not for the sake of care. The preservation of the
property is the car that is renting the property is not a device that will fall
to the property under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 147, paragraph.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2731/2559.
The rent is a flower under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph three. In the seizure of real
estate, the Civil Code Section 304, paragraph two of the provisions to cover
the equipment and flowers of the property. Unless otherwise provided by law.
When there is no other law. The plaintiff led the Enforcement Officer to seize
the land and buildings, which is the property of the defendant to cover the
rent, which is the property of the property. Whether the fruit will be
available before or while the real estate. And the leader does not need to
notify the Enforcement Officer of the existence of the fruit in any way. When
the plaintiff seized the land and buildings within 10 years from the date of
the judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to request the defendant to seize the
rent. This is the fruit of the land and buildings that are seized. Even if the
10-year period has expired, it is no longer possible to terminate the
execution. The plaintiff's law enforcement. Not subject to the Civil Code
Section 271
Judgment of the Supreme Court
988/2559.
Dividends are paid from the
Company's profits to shareholders from time to time in accordance with the
number of shares under Section 1200 and Section 1201. Dividends are the result
of dividends pursuant to Section 148 paragraph three.
When the plaintiff seized the
company's shares within 10 years from the date of the judgment. To seize the
shares will cover the dividends as flowers.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10361/2557.
The plaintiff filed for
divorce from the defendant and asked the judge to split the land to the
plaintiff. The Court of First Instance divided the Marital property, 60 rai of
rubber plantation land and 15 rai of oil palm plantation land dispute to the
plaintiff. Both defendants appeal. During the trial of the Court of Appeal 8,
the plaintiff filed a petition for temporary protection. And the Court of
Appeal 8 ordered the defendant to make a profit accounting income from the land
dispute on a monthly basis. Then the income from the product will be given half
the amount of the total to the court on a monthly basis. The date the defendant
listened to the 8th order of the court until the case is finally reached. Or
the court has ordered otherwise. As a result of the dispute in accordance with
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph one, if the plaintiff
wins the case, the plaintiff shall have the right to receive dividends of the
property of the dispute, which is Marital property. The temporary benefit order is
sought beyond the request in the indictment. It's not a matter outside the
lawsuit.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1681/2552.
The order of the Court of
First Instance to release the defendant from bankruptcy has the effect only
that the defendant is released from bankruptcy, has the power to manage his
property or business, which came from the date of release from bankruptcy. The
Official Receiver has the power to manage and collect the assets of the
defendant, which may be divided in the bankruptcy case. The defendant, who was
released from bankruptcy, also has the duty to assist in the sale and
distribution of his property, which falls to the official receiver as required
by the official receiver. Bankruptcy Act, 1940, Section 79, when the land
dispute is the land that the defendant had at the start of the bankruptcy,
which falls to the official receiver objections. The objections have gathered
the original land disputes, which are important documents for the land dispute
before the court issued a warrant to release the defendant from bankruptcy, so
the rent, which is the result of the land disputes under Section 148 will be
vested. Assets in bankruptcy may be divided into creditors. The opposition has
the power to manage and collect the rent for the land disputes to share the
debt to the creditors.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
463/2550.
The loan agreement, Clause 1,
paragraph two, is that the borrower agrees to pay the interest to the lender on
a monthly basis for a loan at the rate of 19 percent per annum or at a new
interest rate which the lender may change more or less. More than a fixed
interest rate. The borrower agrees to pay interest to the lender at a new
interest rate as announced by the Bank. This contract is an agreement that the
plaintiff has the right to claim interest from the three defendants at the rate
of 19 percent per year from the date of the contract, although not yet
defaulted or breached. Agreement on interest, which is the plaintiff's income
under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph three, although it
appears that in practice, the plaintiff charged interest at the rate of 13
percent per annum and later on. Between the plaintiff's interest rates rise and
fall several times. The last time the plaintiff adjusted interest rates
increased from 7.25 percent per annum to 15 percent per year from December 31,
2001 onwards. It is a plaintiff to benefit the three defendants, in addition to
the agreement, without interest at the rate of 19 percent per year only.
Agreement under paragraph 1, paragraph two, such is not a pre-determined damage
to hold. Penalty under Section 379 and even if Article 3 states that if the
borrower is liable to allow the lender to raise interest rates higher than
prescribed in Clause 1 The interest paid by the plaintiff at the rate of 15
percent per year is not the interest charged by the plaintiff because of the
default of the plaintiff because Article 3 because the plaintiff does not
charge more than the rate specified in contract No. 1, but anyway. Penalties to
the court will have the power to reduce the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
383, paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6348/2549.
The loan agreement. The
borrower agrees to pay the interest to the lender at the rate of 19 percent per
annum or at the new interest rate which the lender may change higher or lower.
The plaintiff has the right to claim interest from the defendant at 1 and 19
percent per year since the contract was made, although not default or breach of
contract. The agreement on interest, which the plaintiff's income under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph three, even during the
plaintiff's interest rate rise and fall several times. With no interest at the
rate of 19 percent per year, it is the plaintiff's benefit to the defendant's
first and third parties in addition to the contract. The agreement is not a
penalty in advance, which will be considered a fine under Section 379 and even
if Article 3 stipulates that if the borrower is liable to allow the lender to
raise interest rates higher than prescribed. In Article 1, but the interest
charged by the plaintiff at the rate of 13.5 percent per annum is not the
interest rate charged by the plaintiff under clause 3, but any interest at 13.5
percent. The penalty is that the Court of First Instance has the power to
reduce the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3040/2548.
The case before the two
defendants, the landowner sued the plaintiff to evict this case, which is the
construction of the commercial and claim damages. Due to the plaintiff's breach
of contract, the plaintiff refused to deliver the contract to the two
defendants. The Supreme Court ruled. I want to return to the original. The
plaintiff must return the land together with a commercial building, which is
considered to be the ownership of the two defendants in this case, the
plaintiff has no right to occupy the land and commercial buildings. Because of
the termination of the contract, the plaintiff has no obligation to deliver the
commercial. Both defendants claim damages in this section are not sentenced.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5692/2546.
Some court decisions are
invalid. But the plaintiff has not appealed the petition against the Court of
First Instance in the wrong. The Supreme Court can not amend the Court of First
Instance to enforce the case to the defendant increased by the plaintiff. And
the defendant will remove the inaccuracy in the ruling and the judgment of the
Court of First Instance to claim to refute the verdict of the Court of First
Instance in the right to find.
When the lease is terminated.
Defendant is obliged to return the leased land to the plaintiff in the
condition received under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 561 and must
dismantle all buildings. Including the pile of the defendant out of the land
rented. Because of this building, the defendant is a builder on the leased land
by virtue of the lease, which is claimed as the ownership of the defendant. It
is not considered a merger with the leased land. Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 146, the Court of First Instance ruled that the defendant did not
intend to use the pile. The plaintiff can not force the defendant and the
defendant is not required to dismantle the underground pile is not correct, but
the plaintiff did not appeal the petition against the Court of First Instance.
The Supreme Court can not amend the Court of First Instance to enforce the case
to the defendant increased by the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
416/2546.
The case before the plaintiff
sued the two defendants, a criminal case on charges of joint invasion, to plant
a house in disputed land. And the property by cutting the pine trees of the
plaintiff planted in the land. The 7th Circuit Court ruled that the plaintiff
is in possession of land disputes and sentenced to two defendants. The case is
finally over The case is a civil case related to the criminal case, which is a
matter of direct dispute is the same issue whether the plaintiff is entitled to
possession of land dispute. In the judgment of this case, the facts as
appearing in the Criminal Judgment under the Criminal Procedure Code under
Section 46 can not be heard. The problem is with the public peace, even without
a duel. The Supreme Court has the power to raise a decision under the Civil
Procedure Code, Section 249, paragraph two, so that the plaintiff is the owner
of the land dispute. Pine trees planted in disputed land are part of the land.
The plaintiff is the owner of the pine. When the two defendants jointly cut the
plaster tooth of the plaintiff damaged. Must share the plaintiff's damages.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5557/2545.
Trading of buildings that are
intended to be made in writing and registered with the competent official under
Section 456 of the Civil and Commercial Code, if so long as not yet registered
with the staff to complete. Acquired by legal acts that the property is not
complete under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1299, paragraph one,
unless it appears that the building has fallen into a land acquisition under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 144, paragraph two, when the defendant
has the right to build the land. have Buildings that the defendant is not a
part of the land under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 146. Therefore,
the transaction acts between the petitioner and the defendant is the only
contract that can be used only. The ownership of the disputed building is not
yet vested in the land. As the case of trading is strictly prohibited, the
parties do not wish to make a letter and register with the competent official.
Even if the defendant gives a claim to the petitioner is considered a
possession instead of the defendant, the ownership of the building remains the
defendant still can not hold that the petitioner is in a position to register
their rights before the Civil and Commercial Code. Commercial Section 1300
because it is not fully paid, the applicant is not covered by the Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 287, so the plaintiff, which is. Creditors under the
judgment will have the right to seize the building, auctioning debt. The singer
has no right to complain.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4084/2545.
The land has a title deed
holder. The objections to the benefits of the assumptions under the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1373 that has the right to possession. If the
complainant argues that the house is owned by another person who has the right
to use the land, it is not considered to be a property of the owner. Land
consolidation. The applicant must bear the burden of proof in this regard.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9526/2544.
The word "honest"
under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1310 is meant that the builders
have built a house into the land without knowing who the land belongs to, but
understand that it is their own land and believe that they have the right to
plant. Build a house on the land as you like. When the defendant had planted a
house in the land dispute by the right of the MPs, knowing that the land
dispute was the property of the MP and had requested permission to plant a
house, so it may not be heard that the defendant has planted a house in
disputed land in good faith. The defendant will be added to the house later by
the MP and the plaintiff will not prohibit the plaintiff will force the
plaintiff, the descendant of the MPs to take home and use the land price is not
increased. The defendant built a house in the land dispute by virtue of the
rights of the House did not make the property fall into the property of the dispute
is owned by the House and the plaintiff in any way under Section 146
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6402/2544.
The plaintiff built a
department store with the plaintiff's baggage on the land plaintiff's contract
from the Department of Religious Affairs. The plaintiff agrees to surrender the
ownership of the building on the land to the Department of Religion
immediately, so that the Department of Religious property ownership of the
building is due to the agreement in the lease. The tenant expressly expresses
his intention to raise the property immediately so that the property that is
being renovated is a permanent property attached to the tenant. It is shown in
the plaintiff that the ownership of buildings, buildings, as well as
improvements to the building at the place of rent. If the plaintiff has no
ownership. The plaintiff will not be able to agree to ownership of the land
immediately, so the department store and the things to be renovated on the
premises. It is the property of the Department of Religious Affairs. Otherwise,
not the case, it is considered that the plaintiff has sold the transfer of the
department store and all the improvements to the building at the place of sale,
which is "sold" under Section 91/1 (4) of the Revenue Code. I have
given that definition. "Sale" means the distribution, transfer,
whether it is beneficial or not.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
883/2544.
The plaintiff rented the land
from the plaintiff, agreed to the plaintiff to build a building on the leased
land and become the property of the plaintiff as soon as the plots are built,
then the plaintiff has the right to bring the building to lease until the lease
term of 23 years. The plaintiff has the right to lease the building on the
land. Buildings, buildings, materials So it is not a property of land under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 146 R. shall have no ownership in buildings,
buildings and materials in accordance with Section 144 paragraph two, but the
ownership of the property because the lease agreement. If the plaintiff does
not have the ownership before the plaintiff can not agree to the property is
owned immediately, so it is considered that the plaintiff. Transfer to the
building Construction of buildings, including materials, for the purposes of
the definition of "sale" under Section 91/1 (4) of the Revenue Code.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
802/2544.
A house planted on a
permanently fixed land can be counted as a part of which the condition is the
essence of the property and can not be separated. In addition to destroying or
destroying the property changes the shape or condition. The house is a land
acquisition. The buyer of the land will have ownership in the home, which is
also a part of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 144.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1445/2543.
The defendant lived in
disputed land since being raised forever. And the defendant has planted a house
in the land disputes after the land dispute has become the subject of the year.
The case is that the defendant exercised the right to live in land disputes,
built houses in the land. Therefore, the exception is not a land acquisition
dispute. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 146.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7872/2542.
According to the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 146, which is temporarily attached to the land or
adjacent to the house, is not considered to be a merger with that land or
house. This clause shall apply to any other house or building where the holder
of the right of the other person's land is entitled to build it in that land.
Dispute the house to the land. Dispute resolution is not a part of the land.
The registration of the
transfer of leasehold rights of land from the right person to another person to
the official. Is not real estate registration. Because the transfer of disputed
property, real estate must follow. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 456, 525
of the Land Code Section 71 is the registration of the land was given to the
land dispute with the land official, so the transfer of the lease of land is
not considered as a lease. Dispute the house because it has not been written
and registered with the competent official as required by law. Dispute to
Dispute House No disputes to transfer the house to the transferee.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7341/2542.
The right to eat in a
particular area shall mean any building which is a part of that land.
When the lease agreement ends,
the lease term ends. The plaintiff has the right to eat the right to sue the
defendant, the tenant. Even the plaintiff is not the contractor as the lessor.
It does not cause the plaintiff as a right holder to eat out the right to
manage the property or to take advantage of the property in the land under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1417.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7340/2542.
Eucalyptus trees are many
years old. The condition is considered perennial. Even the plaintiff is
claiming that the planted to cut the sale is temporarily planted in the ground.
It takes about 3 to 5 years to cut to use. After the cut, the remaining stump
will break up and grow into a new stem. After about 3 years, it will grow the
same. It shows that the plaintiff intended to plant eucalyptus trees for use
for a long period of time, then grow and then cut the teeth once it ends.
Eucalyptus is a land of disputed land.
The defendants both contend
that land dispute is the public domain of the property of the state. If the
facts can be heard, as the two defendants to fight. The plaintiff is not
entitled to possession of land dispute by law. Even the plaintiff planted
eucalyptus in good faith. It may be used to defend the two defendants, which
are not representative of the state. And eucalyptus in the land plaintiff's
plaintiff is not subject to an exception to be considered as a land acquisition
under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 146 if the plaintiff cut the
eucalyptus in between. consider After the defendant wins the case will cause
damage to the state. It is appropriate to prohibit the plaintiff to cut the
teeth of eucalyptus in the land dispute during the trial is temporary.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6348/2549.
The loan agreement. The
borrower agrees to pay the interest to the lender at the rate of 19 percent per
annum or at the new interest rate which the lender may change higher or lower.
The plaintiff has the right to claim interest from the defendant at 1 and 19
percent per year since the contract was made, although not default or breach of
contract. An agreement on interest, which is the result of the plaintiffs
received. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph three, even during
the plaintiff's agreement to raise interest rates higher and lower several
times. With no interest at the rate of 19 percent per year, it is the
plaintiff's benefit to the defendant's first and third parties in addition to
the contract. The agreement is not a pre-determined penalty, which will be
considered as a penalty. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 379, and even if
Article 3 of the contract stipulates that if the borrower is liable for the
lender to raise interest rates higher than that specified in Article 1, but the
interest charged by the plaintiff at the rate of 13.5 per year is not. The
interest rate charged by the plaintiff increased under contract 3, but any
interest rate of 13.5 percent per year, so the penalty at the Court of First
Instance will have the power to decrease. Civil and Commercial Code, Section
383, paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
571/2549.
The loan agreement is that in
the first 2 years from the date of the loan agreement, the plaintiff has a
fixed interest rate of only 5.25 percent per year will not be able to raise
interest rates until the expiration of 2 years from date. Contract unless the
defendant failed to pay the debt, whether within 2 years from the date of the
contract or after. The plaintiff has the right to adjust the interest rate is
always higher, so the interest rate of 5.25 percent per annum in the initial
period is good. And after a period of 2 years from the date of the contract.
All of the debt that the plaintiff is entitled to all the contract. Without
regard to whether the defendant was the default or not. It is a fruit. Civil
and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph three, but for interest at the rate
of 13.5 percent per year, the plaintiff claims from the defendant after the
defendant became a default. And still within a period of 2 years from the date
of the contract. The plaintiff has no right to change interest rates. The
exercise of the right to the plaintiff to increase the interest rate in the
case that the defendant failed to pay the debt. It is a penalty under Section
379.
Defendant will be under the
loan agreement to insure mortgaged buildings to the plaintiff. The defendant
agreed to plaintiff's insurance. And the defendant agreed to pay back the
plaintiff. But after the filing of the debt, which is not yet due, the debt in
the future. The defendant failed to pay the debt was not paid. There is no
dispute about the rights or obligations of the plaintiff and the defendant in
accordance with the law to sue the defendant to pay such debt. The plaintiff
has no right to demand the defendant pay a premium after the filing date.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2356/2545.
Considering that the money that
the creditor claims from the debtor interest, which is a deed or a penalty
depends on the fact that the creditor called for money by reason. If the
creditor is entitled to adjust interest rates higher or lower stipulated in the
contract regardless of whether the debtor is the default or not. The interest
is the interest under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph
three, which creditors are entitled to receive at a variable rate. The court
will adjust interest rates lower than it does. But if the agreement that gives
the creditor the right to remove from the debtor because the debtor defaults,
not repay. It is a pre-defined damage when the debtor fails to pay the debt.
The penalty under Section 379, if it is too high, the court has the power to
reduce the amount of sufficient under Section 383.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8485/2544.
Income from tapping rubber
after the death of the inheritance. It is not a property that was before or
when the inheritance is not inheritance, but the fruit of the estate, the land
is owned by the land in accordance with the proportion of land ownership under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1336 and 1360. The plaintiff knows that
the defendant as a The inheritance has brought the rubber to sell before the
plaintiff sued the case before the plaintiff sued the estate and the Supreme
Court. Judge to a defendant by the plaintiff divided land plots, such as the
rubber from the rubber has since filed a lawsuit as plaintiffs. Before the
defendant has taken advantage of the plaintiff is the only one who would like
to claim that the defendant delivered the income from the tapping of rubber to
the plaintiff at one time. But back to claim this case. It is repeatedly filed
under the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 148.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3467/2543.
Under the loan agreement, the
plaintiff is entitled to interest from the defendant at the rate of 18.5
percent per annum. The interest charged to the plaintiff is the same as the
plaintiff received under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph
three, even in the first plaintiff will charge interest. The defendant did not
reach 18.5 percent per year, it is the plaintiff's benefit to the defendant, in
addition to the terms of the contract, which the plaintiff has the right not to
allow it. Defendant anymore Back to interest at 18.5 percent per annum under
the agreement. In the case of debtors, promised to use a certain amount to be
penalties when they do not pay or pay the wrong debt, which will be considered
a fine under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 379 (not resolved by the 10
/ 2000)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2169/2542.
Interest rates that the
plaintiff has the right to call up if the defendant defaulted or breached
contract conditions. The damage suffered by the defendant, the debtor, the
contract to the plaintiff, the creditor will use a higher amount of penalties
as the defendant does not pay the debt. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 379.
If the court found that the section exceeded. The court shall have the power to
diminish as appropriate. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one,
but the reduction shall be reduced from the excess part of the normal contract.
Not exceeding the legal rate allowed by the plaintiff. Loan agreement No. 2
specifies interest at the rate of 19% per annum as agreement on loan interest
under the contract. And plaintiff lenders have the right to charge interest
rates up to 19 percent per annum during the contract. However, after the date
of the plaintiff's announcement dated March 5, 1998, Article 2 specifies the
interest rate charged to major customers. Types of loans are periodic. The
interest rate is 18% per annum, which the plaintiff is entitled to charge not
exceeding the said rate. Whether the defendant will default or not. The
interest rate is the result of the deed that the plaintiff received. Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 148, paragraph three. The Court of First Instance
reduced the amount of penalties, with the interest rate charged to the
plaintiff next to the filing date of 15% per annum, lower than the rate
specified in the notice.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
696/2542.
The plaintiff's request in the
criminal case before is to return or use the price of property, which is a
civil claim related to criminal cases, the criminal court has the power to
judge. And when the court in the criminal case receives civil claims of the
plaintiff. I like it. Section 173, paragraph two (1) prohibiting the plaintiff
to file the same complaint to the same court or other court. Even in the
interest of the plaintiff did not have a criminal case. But this interest is
the result of legal capital. The lawsuit is enforceable in respect of interest,
therefore, and must be Filed in the same time. It is prohibited by the lawsuit
in the principal.
