Actions of corporations.

Section 65. A juristic person may be established by virtue of the provisions of this Code or other laws.

Section 66. Juristic persons shall have the rights and obligations under the provisions of this Code or other laws. Within the boundaries of authority or purpose, as prescribed or prescribed by law, regulation or instrument.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4554/2559.
             Public company is a separate entity from shareholders. And have the rights and obligations under the law. So is the owner of the loan. When someone takes away the property. It is a direct damage to the PSI.

           Criminal offense under Securities and Exchange Act The case is considered by the Court and examined in court. Not subject to prior review by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Criminal liability is punishable. Offenders themselves are individually. Even the death itself. The facilitator is also liable for such actions.

Section 67 Subject to Section 66, a juristic person shall have the same rights and duties as an individual. Except for the rights and duties which the conditions would only be available to natural persons.

Section 68. The domicile of a juristic person is the place of residence of the head office or the place where the office is located. The nominee is a domicile only in accordance with the regulations or instruments established.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2832/2559.
              Section 68 states that "the domicile of a juristic person is the place where the head office or the place where the office is located ..." and Section 8 of the Taxation Act states that "Subpoena of the tax notice or Other books to which any person in this manner To be sent by registered mail or accepted to the Revenue Officer to send to the domicile or residence. Or the office of the person ... If no recipient is found at the domicile or residence or office of the recipient. It will be sent to any person who has reached the age of majority and live or work in the home or office that appears to be the recipient. "Certificate of Department of Business Development. From 2000 until 2010, the defendant did not register the dissolution or change of office. The defendant is still domiciled. When the plaintiff sent a written notice of appeal to the defendant by registered mail within the country to the domicile of the defendant and the signature of the defendant as a security guard. The defendant acknowledged that the hiring of a security guard on the defendant. The defendant must be informed of the ruling on the appeals in accordance with Section 8.

Section 69 In the case where a juristic person has several offices or branch offices It shall be deemed that the place of residence of the head office or of the branch office is domiciled in the part of the business carried out there.

Section 70. A juristic person must have one or several representatives as prescribed by law, regulation or instrument.
The purpose of the juristic person shall be expressed by the representative of the juristic person.

Section 71 In the case where a juristic person has several representatives The operation of the juristic person shall be in accordance with the majority of the representative of the juristic person. Except as otherwise provided in applicable law, regulation or instrument.

Section 72 Replacement of a Juristic Person Or limit or alter the authority of a representative of a juristic person. To have effect upon compliance with the law. Regulations or established instruments It is a fight against outsiders who act in good faith.

Section 73 If there is a vacancy in the number of representatives of the juristic person And it is reasonable to believe that the vacancy will be damaged. When the interested party or the prosecutor so requests, the court may appoint a temporary representative.

Section 74. If the interests of the juristic person conflict with the interests of the representatives of the juristic person in any way. The representative of the entity is not a representative of that entity.

Section 75 If the case under Section 74 causes no representative of the juristic person Or the representatives of the remaining legal entities are not enough to constitute a quorum. It is not enough to do that if the law, regulation, or instrument of establishment of that entity. There are no other requirements in this regard. The provisions of Section 73 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appointment of a special representative.

Section 76. If the acts of a representative of a juristic person or an authorized representative of a juristic person Cause damage to other people. The entity is liable for the damages. But do not lose the right to recourse to the damage.

        If damage to another person results from actions that are not within the scope of the purpose or authority of the juristic person. Those persons under paragraph one who have agreed to do so or who have done so. Jointly liable for damages to those who have been damaged.

Section 77 shall apply the provisions of this Code. Applicable to the relationship between a juristic person and a representative of a juristic person; And between entities. Or a representative of a juristic person with a third party mutatis mutandis.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 520/2559.
        Section 65. A juristic person can be established only by virtue of the Civil and Commercial Code or other law. If there is no legal requirement for a status of legal entity. It may not be a juristic person under the Constitutional Law on the Election Commission BE 2550, there are provisions on the establishment of organizations. In Section 2 of the Office of the Election Commission, Section 30 paragraph one stipulates that "the Office of the Election Commission shall be an independent agency under the Constitution. Being a juristic person and under the supervision of the Election Commission. The President of the Election Commission is the highest commander. "The provisions of Chapter 1 Election Commission. The provisions of the Section provides that the Election Commission is not a juristic person.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5149/2554.
           Civil Code Section 1 (11). The term means the person who filed the complaint or sued the court, etc., who will be a partner in the case, must be legal persons under the Civil and Commercial Code. Individuals and juristic persons for juristic persons may be established only by virtue of the Civil and Commercial Code or other laws. As prescribed in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 65. The plaintiff is the monastery committee Wat Nong Wien Sopa Faith Ram or Wat Nongwian Wattana Ram. It is a group of people who are united by law to be legal entities. Can not be matched. When the complaint does not appear that the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit as the owner or the land dispute. The plaintiff has no power to sue.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4338/2548.
          The plaintiff's name change is not a change of entity. The plaintiff is still a legal entity. I do not inform the name of the defendant, the second defendant of the work of the defendant, the plaintiff knows. It does not end the guarantee contract. When the defendant committed a violation to the plaintiff while working for the plaintiff, the defendant must be jointly liable to defendant 1 to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3901/2559.
           The contract for the sale of shares of the plaintiff to the company before the bank will enter into a labor contract with the company even if the company merged with the company became a company E. Wed and the company. The right to be a shareholder who bought from the Bank instead of the company. But the company is a separate entity from the plaintiff. It can not be considered that the plaintiff is entitled to lift the agreement under the sale of shares that prohibit business operations or provide information to other parties or agencies that compete with the plaintiff to claim this case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8077/2553.
         Shared auction is one way to earn money. Just like borrowing money to run a business or any other thing that requires money. It is a general operation that can be carried out for the purposes of the certificate. It is not the purpose of the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10687/2551.
          The plaintiff and the plaintiff's plaintiff's attorney's endorsement of the plaintiff will not be labeled. The plaintiff can authorize financial institution or other juristic person to prosecute or prosecute, and the bank can be the proxy of another financial institution or other juristic person to prosecute or prosecute the financial institution or other legal entity. But both the plaintiff and the bank have the purpose of depositing money. Loans Businesses are financial advisors, brokers, debt collectors, debtors, debtors or claims. When the five defendants with the plaintiff debt owed. The plaintiff shall have the power to enforce the five defendants with the repayment of the judgment. The plaintiff has the power to file a bankruptcy case. And it is authorized to authorize the bank to prosecute this case and have the power to delegate the power of the bank with the power of attorney from the plaintiff to sue.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1961/2545.
          The plaintiff is a juristic person under the law governing public limited company. The purpose is to hire and rent property. (1) to (4) in the certificate of the Department of Commercial Registration, Ministry of Commerce. The plaintiff to the defendant to hire a car from the plaintiff, the defendant is a guarantor, so it is within the scope of the plaintiff. The business of the plaintiff is the business of the financing and use of money in any business as defined by the definition of "business capital" under the Act on the business of finance. Securities Business And the credit foncier business in 1979. The business of the plaintiff is not in the business of finance, which must be licensed by the Minister of Finance under Section 8 paragraph one, the plaintiff has the power to sue.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2832/2559.
             Section 68 states that "the domicile of a juristic person is the place where the head office or the place where the office is located ..." and Section 8 of the Taxation Act states that "Subpoena of the tax notice or Other books to which any person in this manner To be sent by registered mail or accepted to the Revenue Officer to send to the domicile or residence. Or the office of the person ... If no recipient is found at the domicile or residence or office of the recipient. It will be sent to any person who has reached the age of majority and live or work in the home or office that appears to be the recipient. "Certificate of Department of Business Development. From 2000 until 2010, the defendant did not register the dissolution or change of office. The defendant is still domiciled. When the plaintiff sent a written notice of appeal to the defendant by registered mail within the country to the domicile of the defendant and the signature of the defendant as a security guard. The defendant acknowledged that the hiring of a security guard on the defendant. The defendant must be informed of the ruling on the appeals in accordance with Section 8.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6062 - 6063/2551.
            The plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 68, the place where the headquarters is the domicile of the company. The plaintiff is headquartered at 162/18 Moo 10, Nongprue Sub-district, Bang Lamung District. Chonburi province Although the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff closed down in 1997, but the plaintiff claimed in the petition. The plaintiff has not been dissolved. Therefore, the plaintiff is still domiciled in the original. Therefore, the Court of First Instance ordered the closure of the appointment to hear the order of the Court of Appeal 2 at the latter, so it is the same with the Civil Code Section 74 (2), then the Court of First Instance. To send the appointment to hear the order of the Court of Appeal 2 to the Managing Director of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer with no.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9131/2544.
           The defendant is a limited company under Section 68 of the Civil Code, which provides that the place of residence is the domicile of the company. The defendant is headquartered at 385/1 Silom Road, Silom, Bangrak, Bangkok. A copy of the indictment and regulations at the house number. The employee will report that the house number is locked. And when you ask the person who is in the neighboring house that the number is closed and no one knows the defendant. It is not clear that that is true. So, in the beginning, the subpoena and copy of the petition must be considered. Including the submission to the defendant is a legitimate submission.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1608/2552.
        Advertising brochures of the defendant. Sales Office of the defendant is located at 632/134, Phra Pinklao Road, Bangyai, Bangkoknoi, Bangkok. Appointment letter to the plaintiff. And the progress of the condominium project also states that the defendant is at the same number. Show that the place is the office. Branch of the defendant It is domiciled in the business that was done at that place, with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 69

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3776/2549.
          Defendant is registered office of a defendant company. However, according to the receipt of the temporary defendant, the plaintiff has identified the location of the defendant, which is the office of the defendant. The defendant has several locations. The Office of the defendant is the domicile of the defendant in the business that was done there, in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 69, the plaintiff sent a letter of termination to the project office, another domicile.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 21764/2556.
            The plaintiff is a public company. Must be expressed by a representative of the plaintiff under Section 70 paragraph two, the age of 1 year, it must start from the date the plaintiff's representatives know of the violation and realize the need to pay compensation. Not since the Court of First Instance has a judgment in Civil Case No. 5158/2546, which has a dispute that R. must pay international long distance telephone service to the plaintiff. The issue of dispute in this case. Both defendants violated the plaintiff. The previous judgment did not determine whether the two defendants in this case violated the plaintiff. Judgment before just ruling that R. is not a contract telephone service under the lawsuit, so it is not liable to the plaintiff as it can not be held on the day the court in the case before the judgment. The plaintiff has known that the two defendants violated. When it appears that the plaintiff acting by the Executive Vice President (Management) authorized the plaintiff to know about the violation and the defendant knows the first and second defendants will be required to pay compensation from the report of the legal department on 23. January 2004 The plaintiff sued the case on January 21, 2005, so no more than one year.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 17827/2556.
           Defendant 4 is a shareholder, which is incorporated into the defendant's company, the status of the defendant 4 must be in force. Section 1015 is separate from the defendant's first defendant, the fourth defendant. A director who has the authority to act on behalf of the defendant was investigated by a staff to solve the allegations or court summons to fight the case after the defendant was filed a criminal case. It is the duty and responsibility of the defendant 4 as a representative of the juristic person under the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 70, paragraph two to make the fourth defendant as a representative of the juristic person became the same person as the defendant company 1. The waiver of the law in Section 1015 is not so. Although the plaintiff sued the defendant 4 has the same facts as the plaintiff sued the defendant in the first case. The 4th person is a separate person from the first defendant and not the person who was first plaintiff sued in the case. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff for the defendant 4 is not sued by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 173, paragraph two (1)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3642/2554.
           Defendant 1 is a juristic person who is a fictitious person who, by virtue of law, will conduct or perform the task of the company by himself, not by a representative. In the case of a defendant 2 is the authorized director of the defendant is responsible for the conduct or performance of the defendant, the first defendant when the defendant. The fact is that the defendant complained that the two defendants against the defendant with the first and the action of the defendant is still a fault at the time of not being properly implemented. Building Control Act 1979, although the second defendant will not be the authority of the defendant No. 1 since May 28, 2004, the time after the incident. However, it is the result of the defendant's liability in the event of a second defendant, if the defendant is not damaged by the fact that it has not done so after that, it would be like to defend the defendant. Part 1 is another part. The second defendant must pay the fine at all times until the violation is correct.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 21166/2556.
         According to the Cooperative Act 1999, Section 50, paragraph one, the cooperative committee is composed of one chairman. Section 51 and the Articles of Association of the Plaintiff, Clause 65, paragraph one, stipulate that the Board of Directors shall proceed as the business operator and be the representative of the plaintiff in the business relating to the third party and to the plaintiff. In this case, the committee will delegate one or more directors or the manager to replace them with the Cooperative Act. And the plaintiff's regulation does not stipulate that the plaintiff will conduct any business. The approval of the Board of Directors. Therefore, the general provisions on juristic persons under the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, which are to be enforced under Section 71, are to be in line with the majority of the committees. Despite the fact that the Supreme Administrative Court ruled in accordance with the judgment of Khon Kaen Administrative Court to revoke the decision of the Khon Kaen Cooperative which did not disqualify the candidate to be the chairman of the plaintiff cooperative cooperative of the result that the application. The chairman of the board of directors is not like and has no legal effect. However, when the Board did not appear, the remaining 14 people were removed from the Board of Directors of the plaintiff. The remaining members of the Board are also representatives of the plaintiff. When the remaining 14 members of the Board signed and stamped the plaintiff's power of attorney to the plaintiff and / or the authority to sue and prosecute the plaintiff. As a majority vote under Section 71, the power of attorney of the plaintiff is completely legal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13140/2556.
       The Supreme Administrative Court ruled on the verdict of Khon Kaen Provincial Administrative Court to revoke the decision of the Khon Kaen Cooperative that did not disqualify the candidate to be the chairman of the plaintiff cooperative cooperative council under the letter of Khon Kaen Cooperative Office at 00000/022 dated. On April 22, 2004, the election of the Chairman of the Board of Directors was not in accordance with the law. However, when the Board did not appear, the remaining 14 people were removed from the Board of Directors of the plaintiff. The remaining members of the Board are also representatives of the plaintiff. When the remaining fourteen members sign and sign the plaintiff's seal of approval, the plaintiff and the plaintiff shall have the power to sue and prosecute the plaintiff. As a majority of the provisions of Section 71 of the Civil and Commercial Code, the power of attorney of the plaintiff is completely legal. The plaintiff sued.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8565 - 8566/2558.
          Even defendant 6 is a limited company. But when the defendant 6 is aimed at operating the lighting, sound, visualization of the show. The 7th defendant, who is the authority to act on behalf of the defendant. 6, the firework installation contractor to make scene scenes in the scene of the accident scene. It must be considered the action of the defendant 6 when the defendant's action 7 is a criminal offense. Despite the negligence of defendant 6, it must also be punished by criminal.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1715/2551.
          After the Court of First Instance has the judgment. The plaintiff held a meeting on April 1, 2006, the plaintiff changed the manager of the condominium juristic person from the age of five years and has been registered as follows: the plaintiff is the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff. The former juristic person manager is the person who filed the appeal and signed the lawyer. However, when the plaintiff has registered the change of manager of the condominium juristic person to be a Ph.D., it shall have the power to withdraw the appeal and withdraw the lawyer. Yes, it is the power of the Prime Minister and the registration of the change of manager of the condominium company is in accordance with the resolution of the new meeting after the Court of First Instance has a verdict. Do not rely on the resolution of the dispute is still in dispute. The withdrawal or withdrawal of the appeal is the right of the plaintiff to do. Yes, it is a dishonest exercise.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1733/2535.
         Section 7 and Section 39 of the Municipal Municipality Act, Section 39 requires the municipality of Muang Phon Plot to be a political entity. The Board of Aldermen is responsible for managing the affairs of the municipality under law. The mayor is the chief. The plaintiff is a juristic person under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 72 and the mayor as a representative of the plaintiff as set out in. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 75 to show that the wishes of the plaintiff is a legal entity. The lawsuit is the administration of a municipal business, which has no provisions. The municipal law, BE 2496, is hereby amended to require any person to be approved. The mayor has the power to represent the plaintiff to prosecute the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8579/2553.
          The petitioner claims that the directors of the company profess to ignore their duties or to act unlawfully. As a consequence, the petitioner as a major shareholder has been damaged, so it is not a matter of vacancy in the number of juristic persons and it is reasonable to believe that the vacancy will be damaged. As prescribed in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 73, or is a matter that the legal entity can not do because some representatives refuse to perform duties to bring the Civil Code. Similar legislation as well as Section 4 and Section 73.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15198/2551.
         The petitioner has co-founded the company, which is the major shareholder of the company. The opposition petitioner who is the manager of the condominium company did not take any action against the company, which owed a large amount of central expenses. It is important to take into consideration the impact on your relatives and yourself in the company. This is an act that is against the interests of the juristic person. The Milford Paradise Condotel condominium holds that the interest of the juristic person is contrary to the interest of the representative of the juristic person in such matter. When there is no law to raise the case. It does not appear that there is a local custom in this case. The case must be settled by the comparable law of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, the co-owner of the condominium will request the court to appoint a deputy to be specific representatives to handle the demand. Central expenses as well as other related activities in accordance with the regulations of juristic person condominium Milford Paradise Condotel under Section 75

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2980/2550.
        The request that the court appoint a temporary representative of the juristic person shall be the case that the representative of the juristic person vacant under Section 73 or the juristic person can not act under Section 75, and if leave the vacancy. Will cause damage to the operation of the entity. In case of petition, it is requested that the court appoint a specific representative or temporary representative of the juristic person to carry out a criminal case against the director of the company. If the petitioner as the shareholder of the company has been damaged by the criminal offense of the company, then the criminal case can be brought to the person who caused the petitioner to be damaged in accordance with Section 1169, if the petition is not the case. Invalid entity Or a representative of a juristic person can not perform duties that would cause damage to the operation of the company. It is not the case that the interests of the juristic person contrary to the interest of the representative of the juristic person in any way that the representative of the juristic person will not be a representative of that is not in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 74. You can not apply for a specific representative or temporary representative.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3203/2558.
           The Army is a government agency. The Supreme Command Headquarters And the Supreme Commander is the government. Under the Ministry of Defense under the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Defense, BE 2503, Section 8, which applies while the plaintiff sued this case. The Ministry of Defense has the power to regulate the affairs of the Supreme Command. It is considered to be a military under the command of the Supreme Command, which is a government agency of the defense of the defendant when the Secretary of State, driving a truck accident on the orders of the bosses negligence. Caught in the car with the plaintiff's insurance. Both the Army and the Defense Ministry are legal entities. The plaintiff has the right to sue the Army, which is a direct agency. And suing the Ministry of Defense, which is the agency in high order with. The plaintiff sued the Ministry of Defense to take compensation for damage to the Tenth Lieutenant, which is a representative of the defendant who violates Section 76 paragraph one of the plaintiff has the power to sue.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5093/2556.
            In case of abuse caused by many staff. Even the verdict will require the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff's officer jointly liable to the victim. But it is a liability as a legal entity to remedy the damage to the plaintiff and the plaintiff to take recourse to a representative of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 76 when the plaintiff is a state agency is a juristic person and has recourse. According to the Act on Infringement of Officers BE 2539, which came into force before the accident, this case must be enforced under Section 8 paragraph four. Limited shall apply to the three defendants who violate the victims, the officers of the plaintiff. All three defendants are liable for damages to the plaintiff only their own.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1892/2552.
           Defendant is a juristic person under the Tambon Council and Subdistrict Administrative Authority, Section 43, which the defendant wishes to be represented by a representative of the defendant under Section 70 paragraph two, the defendant announced the purchase price of cars. On July 30, 2001, the plaintiff submitted a bid for a car on August 9, 2001, and entered into an auto sales contract with the President of the Executive Committee of the defendant on August 17, 2001. The involvement of the plaintiff. It is in the margin of power that agents do. But when the resolution of the meeting to cancel the demand on August 8, 2001, it is a matter that the agent made over the agent. Therefore, it must be in accordance with Section 822 of the agreement will be enforceable between the plaintiff, a third party and the defendant, whether or not it depends on the practice of the plaintiff to the plaintiff. It is reasonable to believe that the sale of disputes in the power of the representative of the defendant or not.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15198/2551.
            The petitioner has co-founded the company, which is the major shareholder of the company. The opposition petitioner who is the manager of the condominium company did not take any action against the company, which owed a large amount of central expenses. It is important to take into consideration the impact on your relatives and yourself in the company. An act that is against the interests of the juristic person of the Milford Paradise Condo Condotel can be considered that the interests of the legal entity contrary to the interests of the representatives of. The entity in question When there is no law to raise the case. It does not appear that there is a local custom in this case. Therefore, the case must be resolved by comparing the corresponding laws. Civil and Commercial Code Section 4 The applicant, who is the co-owner of the condominium, shall request the court to appoint the bank as the sole representative to act on the demand for central expenses. The other relevant proceedings in accordance with the regulations of the juristic entity Milford Paradise Condotel under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 75

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2980/2550.
         A request for a court to appoint a temporary representative of a juristic person must be the case. Incorporated by Civil and Commercial Code Section 73 or a juristic person representative can not act under Section 75, and if left vacant, it would cause damage to the operation. Of the entity. The case is requested by the court to appoint a specific representative or temporary representative. A criminal case against a company director. If the complainant as a shareholder of the company is damaged by the action. Criminal offenses of the company can also be prosecuted for criminal prosecution. The damage is already under Section 1169. If the petition is not a case where the representative of the legal entity is empty. Or a representative of a juristic person can not perform duties that would cause damage to Company Operations It is not the case that the interests of the legal entity conflict with the interests of the interests. A representative of a juristic person in which any representative of the juristic person will be represented. That does not follow. Civil and Commercial Code Section 74 The petitioner can not apply for appointment of a specific representative or temporary representative of a juristic person.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 718/2550.
            The driver of a car from Bangkok to Chai Nat province, according to the order of the director of the company, and the employer of the PM to the Republic of Thailand to negotiate damages to the car accident. Car of the other person during the performance of the duties of the company representative to agree to indemnify Compensation for damages. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 850, 852 for the violation of the law. The company may be liable for damage as well. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 77, 425, 427, the negotiation to pay damages for the work is to prevent or protect the benefits to the company. Of the employer, but during the travel before the negotiation of damages. The gunmen shot down ammunition and shot dead in the absence of a crime. Negotiation or due to negotiation of damages. It's not the usual cause of travel. It is not a direct result of work. To protect the employer. Or at the behest of the employer, the death and death so it can not be considered because of work. Therefore, the employer did not suffer any danger under Section 5 of the Work Compensation Fund Act BE 2537

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6281/2550.
            According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1164, the Commission will delegate any of its powers to the manager. Or to the subcommittee, which is set up by the directors together. The power of attorney must be in accordance with the order or the regulation, which all directors determine to share the duties under the authority of the director to the manager or sub-delegate to manage instead as an entity representative in an internal only. The fact that a legal entity will file a lawsuit will be the power of the entity itself, which will be done by the director who is the representative of the juristic person. If not filed lawsuit itself. I have the authority to set up a legal representative of the lawsuit. In this case, the connection between the entity. The director and the appointed person Must comply with the provisions of Civil and Commercial Code With the agent. There is no obligation for a limited company. Appointment of a representative from the manager or sub-committee of the company. The authorities have the power to appoint any person to represent the prosecution on their behalf.

Defendant to pledge and pledge agreement with the plaintiff's bank due to the defendant's management in the company's error and loss to the plaintiff's request to the plaintiff, the shareholders of the company to correct. The agreement that the defendant to pay personal debt to the company that the defendant misconduct as follows: Despite the coercion or threat from the plaintiff to prosecute the defendant or the company. If the defendant refused to make a loan agreement and a pledge agreement with the plaintiff, it is only a threat to exercise the normal right. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 165, paragraph one does not constitute a threat under the law to make a loan agreement and pledge between the plaintiff and the defendant void.

The defendant agrees to the plaintiff's bank to take the money that the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff to pay the debt of the defendant to the defendant company for the benefit of the defendant itself. The defendant agreed to repay the loan to the plaintiff after the loan agreement, it must be considered that the defendant received the loan from the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not need to have proof of the defendant's money to show because the defendant accepted that the plaintiff to take the loan to pay the debt of the defendant to the defendant company can not say or claim, or petition. The plaintiff did not take the money that the defendant paid to the company. Because it is different from the fact that the defendant to fight the case. The claim and the petition is beyond the scope of the statement. The Supreme Court does not accept the ruling.

The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant was receiving money from the plaintiff as the defendant accepted. The plaintiff does not need proof of receipt of the defendant's show. The case was not brought by the plaintiff to file additional witnesses to listen. Even if the filing of additional evidence of the plaintiff is against. The Code of Civil Procedure Code 87 and 88 does not make the case of the Supreme Court change the above. The Supreme Court ruled in this case is not relevant to the case should be diagnosed under Section 249 paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5259/2549.
         The issue of the case must be taken from the complaint and the statement. Not from the facts and the evidence in the floor. Both defendants will have the plaintiff's testimony that the employee of the plaintiff is the book of fruit disputes and cause the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court dismissed the reason that the plaintiff employed the work. Employee plaintiff is the owner of copyright. But when the two defendants did not say. The plaintiff has no power to sue because the plaintiff, the employer to create a job. Copyright is an employee of the defendant, the only two that the plaintiff has no power to sue because the plaintiff is a legal entity, the status of the plaintiff can not be initiated. The plaintiff can not create a copyrighted work. The issue is that. The plaintiff has no power to sue because the plaintiff is a legal entity can not create their own copyright. The Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court ruled. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff because the employer is the creator. Employee plaintiff is the owner of copyright. It is a non-issue dispute. And not the law of public order.

The plaintiff is a legal entity. But the plaintiff is a representative of the legal entity to act as a legal entity under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 70, paragraph two. The purpose of the juristic person is expressed by the representative of the juristic person and Section 67 stipulates that the juristic person shall have the same rights and duties as the individual. Unless the rights and duties by which the condition is only applicable to natural persons, and in conjunction with the Copyright Act, BE 2537, Section 8, paragraph two, provided that. In cases where the creator must be a Thai citizen. If the creator is a juristic person. Such juristic person must be a juristic person established under Thai law. Therefore, the plaintiff, which is incorporated under the laws of Thailand, is the author of the copyright. The plaintiff claims that the plaintiff is the copyright creator. The plaintiff claims that the plaintiff is the copyright creator. The plaintiff claims that the plaintiff is the creator of the work itself. Copyright Act 1994, Section 18, the plaintiff has the power to sue. The plaintiff makes or produces the first fruit book by using his knowledge as a creative publishing house, with the dedication of knowledge and skill of the work. Complete from Rayong and Chantaburi. Position the fruit, then have a team of photographers into a large film and then take a picture to scan the computer system is complete with information on the fruits of the fruit. It is considered that the plaintiff used the perseverance to produce a book of fruit, the first photo and fruit is a work of art photography. The description of the fruit is a creative literary work. Copyright Act, 1994, Section 6, the plaintiff is the injured and has the power to sue.

Defendant 2 is the supplier or design of the fruit by the defendant, no one involved or order the defendant to reproduce or modify the picture of the fruit of the plaintiff's plaintiff, the defendant did not infringe the copyright of the plaintiff.

The fruit of the calendar from January to October 2002, the second defendant made a reproduction and adapted from the first book of fruit, thus infringing copyright in the photo court of the plaintiff. The information describing the fruits of the literary work of the plaintiff when comparing the information in the calendar and the difference in the two defendants did not infringe copyright in the literary works of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff prepared a book called Fruit 1 and also printed the fruit calendar for foreign customers. The second defendant to modify the plaintiff will lose revenue. The defendant's second distribution to the customer, even if not sold, causes damage to the plaintiff and is not for the benefit of himself or his family and does not enter into other exceptions under Copyright Act 2537, Section 32, paragraph two, as well as the exploitation of the copyrighted work of the copyright owner under Section 32 paragraph one, the action of the defendant is a violation of the copyright of the plaintiff. Section 27 (1)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5527/2548.
The plaintiff sued the misuse of fake documents in the lawsuit b. "After the two defendants jointly committed the offense in accordance with the lawsuit A. The defendant, the defendant, the two have denied the official documents that the two defendants together. Do fake it up. Claimed to Kokomo District Administrative Organization. To deceive ... "The plaintiff's indictment describes the fact that the defendant is a juristic person, the second defendant as a representative of the entity is the offender using fake documents. The plaintiff did not describe the fact that the defendant 2 as a private body is a common offense using fake documents. The lower court judges both defend the defendant. 2 in falsification use fake documents It is a judgment in excess of the request or not stated in the lawsuit. Disregarded by the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 192, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7391/2547.
Being a juristic person of a partnership, a corporation, and the authority of that juristic person. The registrar of the partnership must shorten the list which has been registered for publication in the Gazette and is deemed to be known to the public. Civil and Commercial Code Section 1021 and 1022, the defendant stated that. The plaintiff is a public company and not have the power to act on behalf of the plaintiff or the defendant does not know the certificate and the power of attorney did not specify the power of the defendant to the court in this case only. Is an unambiguous statement There are issues that the plaintiff must bring witnesses. I also violate the presumption of the law. When the Power of Attorney indicates that it has the power to file a lawsuit and prosecute any branch where there is interest or interest. And the defendant has a debt owed to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has the power to sue the defendant to the plaintiff, the plaintiff must find the name of the person to be sued and the court to file a lawsuit.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1816/2547.
Any person will exercise his or her right to a fair trial without a dispute. The Civil Procedure Code, Section 55, is subject to the law of the Advocate-General, which, as the case may be, requires the court to assert or defend its existing rights. The petitioner considers that the petitioner who has been authorized by the juristic person has the right to have the lawyer in the case before the provisions of The Civil Procedure Code, Section 60 paragraph one and the Lawyer Act BE 2528, Section 33, as claimed by the applicant. However, the court of first instance is not allowed to petition the lawyer. It is a matter for the petitioner to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the law on how to consider. The petitioner will file a petition for a non-controversial case to ask the court to order another such case. Because the case of the petitioner has no law, the provisions of any chapter encourages the petitioner to exercise the right to court.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3883/2546.
While the plaintiff sued the defendant. Phra Thep Panya Muni is not representative of the defendant, the second defendant, who is a monk and the highest seniority of the monastery, the defendant must be acting as the abbot of the plaintiff, the defendant claims that the first defendant by the defendant. Acting Abbot It is a rightful indictment. The lawsuit against the legal entity as a defendant without the name of the representative of the juristic person or the name of the legal entity. It does not turn into a lawless indictment. Because it is not a defendant against the defendant.

At the temple, the defendant invaded the forest to create a pagoda. Pavilions and buildings In the national park. Not a district of the defendant as a defendant, the second defendant acting on behalf of the abbot of the defendant, the defendant is the second defendant as a representative of the defendant, the second defendant shall have the part or the consent. To do that When the act is not within the scope of the purpose or authority of the measure of the defendant and cause damage to the defendant, the two must jointly with the defendant to liable for compensation to the Department of Forest plaintiff. Under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 76, paragraph two.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6064/2545.
Defendant 1 is a limited company. The intention or intention expressed by the legal representative is the defendant, the two defendants, the authority of the defendant, so when the defendant issued two checks to pay for goods. The actual debt and legally enforceable by the second defendant to sign and pay the stamp of the defendant company 1, it is clear that the two defendants act both as personal and as the authority to act on behalf of the defendant. 1 is a joint defendant, the defendant can not claim that there is no intention to issue a dispute.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3252/2545.
Defendant's signature. The application is then submitted to the registrar for registration of such change. With the removal of the name of the petitioner, the company's director removed from office. This has a direct impact on the status and legitimacy of the applicant. The petitioner is the person who has been damaged by the defendant's actions only on the basis of fraudulent use of false documents under Section 268 of the Criminal Code and is the victim under Criminal Procedure Code Section 2 (4) has the right to apply for a plaintiff in the offense under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 30

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6837/2544.
Defendant 1, by the two defendants, the authority to act on behalf of the fake tax invoices used as evidence in the tax credit, the defendant must be guilty of the two defendants, who are authorized directors. Representatives and users of false tax invoices on behalf of the defendant is a co-offense to be liable under the Penal Code Section 83. If not required to rely on Section 90/5 Revenue Code It is assumed that the director or representative of the juristic person shall be punished.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4207/2543.
The intention of the defendant is a legal entity is represented by a legal entity. In case of juristic person, there are many representatives. The operation of legal entities shall be in accordance with the majority of votes. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 71 and appearing on the certificate that the defendants 2 to 6 are directors who have the power to manage the company by binding the company. Two of these five directors must sign together and affix the company seal. And in those only four defendants know the fact that the trademark dispute is the plaintiff, but the defendant 4 is concealed claiming that this trademark is their own. It is reasonable to believe that the defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6, which later became a director together with the 4 defendants do not know that the trademark belongs to the plaintiff as follows: the defendant 4 one of the defendant's first. By no means alone, the defendant is aware that the trademark belongs to the plaintiff. It may not hold that the defendant knows the facts. The action of the defendant, including the 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants, it would be held that there is no intention to base criminal offense together counterfeit trademark and sell counterfeit trademark products of the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6558/2541.
In the case of a criminal offense committed against a juristic person, the manager or other representatives of the juristic person shall have the power to file a lawsuit against the juristic person. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 3 and Section 5, the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for the delegation of authority to a juristic person. The Criminal Procedure Code is to be used. Enough to enforce it. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 15 and the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 47, paragraph three, provides for the power of attorney made abroad, if it is foreign with the Siam Consulate. The consul is a witness. If done in a foreign city No consul Must be a staff of Notary, Punjabi or Magyaz, or someone else. The law of the locality establishes the authority to testify in such a document and must be certified by a foreign government indicating that the witness is a witness. Authorized person It does not appear that the power of attorney is required. Signed in the power of attorney, however, so when the power of attorney to file a lawsuit to the defendant. The authority to represent the entity. And there are witnesses as required by law. Signed The power of attorney is so lawful, the attorney of the victim entity. I have the power to delegate. The complaint period.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3369/2541.
To be a juristic person and the power of the juristic person, the registrar of the partnership must shorten the list to be printed in the Gazette and be aware of all persons under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1021 and 1022 of the Certificate of Incorporation. Given that the defendant 1 is a limited partnership, the second defendant is a managing partner, so it is a public document. The Civil Procedure Code, Section 127, shall apply mutatis mutandis to bankruptcy proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act BE 2483, Section 153, presumed to be true and correct. When the defendant claimed that he was not the managing partner of the defendant's limited partnership. 1, it is the responsibility of the defendant that the document is Mayan to detect inaccuracies or inaccuracy of the document when the witness evidence that the defendant no two weight loss to offset the presumption of the law. The fact is that the defendant was the second defendant managing partner of the law. Court of First Instance has the defendant of the defendant, the plaintiff is the second defendant, the Managing Partner, a defendant and a partner of unlimited liability bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act BE 2483 without regard to the debt of. Defendant 1 is the liability of the defendant 2 or not, and do not take into account that the case of the defendant is required by the Bankruptcy Act 1983 8 (9) that presumed that the defendant was insolvent or not because the defendant defaulted to defend the debt 2, the defendant will be liable for such indefinite amounts under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1070 and 1077.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5008/2540.
Although the three defendants will be guaranteed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff debtors because the plaintiff lack of financial liquidity. To join the program on April 4 to receive low interest loans from the Bank of Thailand. It is not intended as binding. It appears that while the contract of guarantee, the three defendants are representatives of the plaintiff by the defendant, the first defendant is the chairman of the two defendants as the Managing Director and the third defendant, which is considered the interests of the legal entity contrary to the interest of the representative of the juristic person. The knowledge of the three defendants is not knowledge of the plaintiff. According to the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 74, the second defendant did not appear that other directors of the plaintiffs to know when the plaintiff and the plaintiff is the actual debt. And the three defendants have pledged to guarantee the two to the plaintiff as such, the contract is not void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 154, the three defendants must be jointly liable to the plaintiff under the guarantee.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4049/2540.
Although the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1151, only the meeting will be set up or withdraw the directors. However, it did not remove the power of the court to withdraw the temporary legal representative of the court set up under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 73, although there is no direct provisions to the court to withdraw the legal representative of the temporary. The Court of Appeals ruled that if the law intended to allow the court to have the power to withdraw a temporary representative of a juristic person established by the court, it would have been provided. It does not appear that such a statement was made. Is not valid

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7030/2539.
Even the defendant's attorney's signature will be signed. Only one defendant managing partner. Does not meet the limits of power the managing partner provides. The signature of the defendant and the seal of the department of the defendant under the certificate of juristic person, which gives the power of the representative of the legal entity in the prosecution of the defendant. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal exercised its power under Section 66 of the Civil and Criminal Court to order the defendant to correct the defect by requesting the court to appoint a temporary representative under Civil and Commercial Code Section 73 and make a lawyer's resume. This is the power that the Court of Appeal can do for the benefit of justice. The Court of Appeal is empowered to correct this defect when it finds itself. The Court of First Instance ordered. A temporary representative of the defendant as the defendant filed a petition. C. Also a partner of the defendant authorized to sign with. In doing the legal act of the mall, it appears that c. Show an antagonism with the defendant. Do not sign the lawyer bill with MPs limit the power of managing partners. Such circumstances would damage the defendant. And there is no way to enforce c. To defend the interests of the defendant. The Court of First Instance has a set. A temporary representative of the defendant and the defendant has proposed a new lawyer's order under the order of the Court of Appeal, and then make the power to sue the defect is a legal right to file a lawsuit from the outset. The defendant has the power to fight the case and counterclaim.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6615/2538.
The petitioner's petition will use the term of the petitioner. The petition is different from the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 73, using the terms of the temporary representative, but it is evident that the petitioner wishes the court to appoint the petitioner to have power to correct the defect. The defendant in the plaintiff to file a lawsuit against the plaintiff, only the person who uses the words in the wrong words of the law in law, only the court will adjust the law. Do the facts of cases.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2956/2538.
The Royal Thai Army is a juristic person, the commander of the army is the representative and the person expressing the intent of the juristic person, even if a report of the incident and damage occurs, but the commencement date shall be counted from the date the commander of the army or person. Act on behalf of any person.

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More