Act of camouflage, intent to deceive, intentionally displayed by mistake, intentional act of intimidation.

Section 149 Act means any act done by law and with the consent of the applicant. Directly to the legal relationship between the person to change, transfer, reserve or suspend the right.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13070/2558.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to the defendant issued a letter of credit. The resolution of the counterclaim was paid according to the amount that is correct. The plaintiff agrees to pay the overdue central expenses. When the plaintiff settled the debt in accordance with the Court of Appeal 1, then the debt is suspended. The plaintiff has the right to demand that the defendant issue a letter of credit as well. The plaintiff wishes to bring this book to the land official to request registration of the transfer of the apartment. The defendant issued a letter of guarantee, thus giving rise to the plaintiffs to transfer the apartment. It is the sole act of the defendant under Section 149 of the Civil and Commercial Code. If the condition of the debt does not open the channel. The court would like to order the judgment on behalf of the intent of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 213, paragraph two.

Section 150. Any purpose is expressly prohibited by law, is impossible or contrary to public order or good morals. That's a void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2120/2559.

The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to lease land while within the period of legal transfer prohibited. According to the nature of the contract, the right to demand that the defendant register the transfer of ownership of land and lose the right to possession of land, contrary to the intent of the law requires that the land use rights to the land and housing. career And the circumstances of the plaintiff and the defendant before the contract to apply for registration of land transfer, but can not be done because of the transfer agreement. It is a legal act that is intended to transfer the land. Although the conditions for registration of the transfer of ownership when the payment of the full payment of the lease after the period of legal transfer. It is a deliberate circumvention of the statutory prohibitions of transfer. Is a legal act that is prohibited by law void under Section 150 of the plaintiff can not raise the law as a void as an excuse to force the defendant to transfer the land to the plaintiff.

Section 151. What act is the difference with the provisions of the law. If it is not law relating to public order or morality. That's not a void.

Section 152. Any failure to comply with the law. That's a void.

Section 153. Any failure to comply with the provisions of the law on the ability of persons. That is void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8304/2559.

For mortgage registration on March 9, 2006, on March 9, 2006, the second defendant borrowed money from the dissenter to repay the mortgaged mortgage of the land under a petition to the bank and on the same day the defendant pledged land to mortgage. The objections in the three months before the request to the defendant bankruptcy. But the second defendant entered a mortgage agreement with the objections. The savings cooperative is to take the money from the mortgage to the dissenter to pay the debt to the bank A. who is the land mortgage. When the second defendant received money from the objection, then the second defendant took the money to pay the mortgage and redeemed the mortgage from the bank and then mortgage the land that the mortgage to the applicant immediately. The case is only a replacement mortgage financial institutions such as this, the land mortgage between the two defendants and the opposition on March 9, 2006 is only a mortgage agreement derived from the original mortgage agreement. It can not be regarded as an act intended to any one creditors advantageous creditors under the Bankruptcy Act, BE 2483, Section 115 can not revoke the registration of mortgage. The second defendant registered the mortgage and mortgage land on the petitioner on July 19, 2007, May 16, 2008, June 2, 2009 and December 16, 2009, after the date of the defendant's second court. Security Guard When the court ordered the defendant of the second defendant, the sole receivership has the authority to manage the business and property of the defendant. Second, the defendant does not do any of their property or business operations under the Act. Bankruptcy, 1940, Section 22 and Section 24, so the registration of the mortgage and mortgage of land that the defendant committed on the day is clearly prohibited by law. Illegally It is void under Section 150

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8265/2559.

Acting for legal purposes is prohibited by law or contrary to the morals or good of the people, which is under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150. Both parties must know or have the purpose. that Fire insurance contract The claimant is not aware that the insured goods are infringing or infringing on the trademark, which is illegal. Representatives of the singer just take a picture of the product in the showcase only. The objections have never been made to the fact that such property is illegal and the petitioner has never known or acknowledged that the insured product was illegal. When it does not appear that the singer details the watch brand. The price or source of the watch that the objections to the seller will see that the petitioner is intending to cover the wrist watch products that the objections are for sale in general. For the fact that the wrist watch may be illegal or not, the person does not know. Fire insurance contracts in stock watches are made to protect the property of the opposition in the event of a fire or additional disaster. When the objections are owned and occupied by wrist watches for sale. If the watch is damaged by fire or a specified hazard. The objection to the loss of property or the benefit of the property. The opposition is a stakeholder in the insurance. Insurance between the petitioner and the objection has the purpose of being prohibited by law or contrary to public order or good morals. As not covered by Section 150, the petitioner and the petitioner are bound by the terms of the agreement and the liability of the fully-enforceable fire.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15668/2558.

The defendant empowered the plaintiff to bid for a job and contracted to build a school building with the Department of Education and the plaintiff's three construction of the three plaintiffs are investors and paid the defendant. If the plaintiff's lack of funds and the defendant paid advance payments. The plaintiffs will return the interest. The defendant became the representative of the three plaintiffs in the contract of construction with the Department of Education. The defendant is still liable under the construction contract with the Department of Education. But the plaintiffs and the three defendants must invest and construction. And the defendant is also liable under the contract is a joint agreement to engage in business. Is a reciprocal contract When the contract has no purpose, it is expressly prohibited by law. It is impossible or contrary to the peace or morals of the people under Section 150 of the contract is governed by Section 149 and 369 of the Civil and Commercial Code, although the plaintiffs claim that the defendant. representative But when the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff sued the plaintiffs agreed to work together to receive benefits. It is the plaintiff's understanding of the law that the contract is a representative contract. The court shall have the power to enforce the provisions of the contract of compensation to the case under Section 134 Civil Code Section 134 is not judged over or except in the plea that is prohibited under Civil Code Section 142

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13070/2558.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to the defendant issued a letter of credit. The resolution of the counterclaim was paid according to the amount that is correct. The plaintiff agrees to pay the overdue central expenses. When the plaintiff settled the debt in accordance with the Court of Appeal 1, then the debt is suspended. The plaintiff has the right to demand that the defendant issue a letter of credit as well. The plaintiff wishes to bring this book to the land official to request registration of the transfer of the apartment. The defendant issued a letter of guarantee, thus giving rise to the plaintiffs to transfer the apartment. It is the sole act of the defendant under Section 149 of the Civil and Commercial Code. If the condition of the debt does not open the channel. The court would like to order the judgment on behalf of the intent of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 213, paragraph two.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6010/2557.

Plaintiff purchased the Chiang Mai Tower from the auction of the enforcement. When to register the transfer of ownership. Must have a letter of credit from the defendant to the land office in accordance with the Condominium Act, Section 29, paragraph two, which if no certificate of debt relief from the defendant to the plaintiff may not. To proceed to register the transfer of the apartment to the plaintiff. As such, the defendant must issue a letter of guarantee to the plaintiff. It is considered that any defendant must do to have the effect of changing, transferring or suspending the right to register the right in the apartment. Acting as a single act under Section 149, when the defendant refused to issue a certificate of debt relief and the plaintiff sued the court to order the defendant to issue a letter of guarantee to the plaintiff. If the defendant ignored the action. So it is preferable that the court will order to hold the verdict on behalf of the defendant's intent as requested by the plaintiff under Section 213

Judgment of the Supreme Court 20056/ 2556.

The plaintiff sued. Defendant as a guarantor willing to self-unconditional commitment to the kind of delinquency, as well as the first-class debtor to pay the claim of the plaintiff, the employer in case of damage caused by the employer. Or pay any fine or expense, or the contractor does not fulfill any obligations specified in the contract. The defendant will not claim any arguments and the plaintiff does not need to call the contractor to pay the debt first, so if the claim. The guarantee under the letter of guarantee is not binding on one creditor to pay the debt when the debtor does not pay. But it is a guarantee that the defendant is bound to make payments to the plaintiff in a strict manner as the debtor at the first call on condition that no reason can be cited between the plaintiff and the defendant to remove the liability. And the liability of the defendant in this case is not dependent on the liability of the defendant jointly. The rights and obligations of the plaintiff and the defendant in the dispute in this case is independent and must be considered separately from the contract of construction. The effect of the enforcement of this contract will affect the rights and duties of the defendant and the defendant in accordance with the request to issue a letter of guarantee disputes. Or affect the rights and obligations of the plaintiff and the defendant under the construction contract. It must be different.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8711/2554.

The rules of registration of rights and juristic acts of transferring the ownership of a condominium are governed by law without exception. Therefore, it would apply to the case of registration of transfer of ownership of apartments due to the auction under the court order. Not applicable only if the owner of the unit is the applicant to transfer the ownership of the apartment. Costs incurred even though the co-owners who own the unit are obliged to pay jointly. Condominium Act, BE 2522 Section 18 of the Law does not prohibit any person to pay such debt in lieu of the owner of the apartment. The condition of the condominium is used for the common housing of many people. Laws and regulations of condominium juristic persons are the requirements of the rights and duties of the residents for the common good. Co-owners are responsible for central expenses and fines in accordance with laws and regulations, as long as they are not contrary to law. The plaintiff, the buyer of the suite, must accept both the rights and obligations of the original co-owner. And it must be considered that the penalty resulting from the default of payment of such central expenses is part of the central expenses that the plaintiff is responsible for.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8304/2559.

For mortgage registration on March 9, 2006, on March 9, 2006, the second defendant borrowed money from the dissenter to repay the mortgaged mortgage of the land under a petition to the bank and on the same day the defendant pledged land to mortgage. The objections in the three months before the request to the defendant bankruptcy. But the second defendant entered a mortgage agreement with the objections. The savings cooperative is to take the money from the mortgage to the dissenter to pay the debt to the bank A. who is the land mortgage. When the second defendant received money from the objection, then the second defendant took the money to pay the mortgage and redeemed the mortgage from the bank and then mortgage the land that the mortgage to the applicant immediately. The case is only a replacement mortgage financial institutions such as this, the land mortgage between the two defendants and the opposition on March 9, 2006 is only a mortgage agreement derived from the original mortgage agreement. It can not be regarded as an act intended to any one creditors advantageous creditors under the Bankruptcy Act, BE 2483, Section 115 can not revoke the registration of mortgage. The second defendant registered the mortgage and mortgage land on the petitioner on July 19, 2007, May 16, 2008, June 2, 2009 and December 16, 2009, after the date of the defendant's second court. Security Guard When the court ordered the defendant of the second defendant, the sole receivership has the authority to manage the business and property of the defendant. Second, the defendant does not do any of their property or business operations under the Act. Bankruptcy, 1940, Section 22 and Section 24, so the registration of the mortgage and mortgage of land that the defendant committed on the day is clearly prohibited by law. Illegally It is void under Section 150

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8265/2559.

Acting for legal purposes is prohibited by law or contrary to the morals or good of the people, which is under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150. Both parties must know or have the purpose. that Fire insurance contract The claimant is not aware that the insured goods are infringing or infringing on the trademark, which is illegal. Representatives of the singer just take a picture of the product in the showcase only. The objections have never been made to the fact that such property is illegal and the petitioner has never known or acknowledged that the insured product was illegal. When it does not appear that the singer details the watch brand. The price or source of the watch that the objections to the seller will see that the petitioner is intending to cover the wrist watch products that the objections are for sale in general. For the fact that the wrist watch may be illegal or not, the person does not know. Fire insurance contracts in stock watches are made to protect the property of the opposition in the event of a fire or additional disaster. When the objections are owned and occupied by wrist watches for sale. If the watch is damaged by fire or a specified hazard. The objection to the loss of property or the benefit of the property. The opposition is a stakeholder in the insurance. Insurance between the petitioner and the objection has the purpose of being prohibited by law or contrary to public order or good morals. As not covered by Section 150, the petitioner and the petitioner are bound by the terms of the agreement and the liability of the fully-enforceable fire.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5264/2559.

According to Section 303, the first paragraph states that "the right to demand that you transfer it. Except for the condition of the right itself will not open the channel to transfer it. "When the right to claim the debt transferred to the same as the right to claim the debt in accordance with the judgment of the Civil Court. Case number red d. 509/2545 that the person who is entitled to enforce the judgment must be a partner or a person who wins the case under Section 272 of the Civil Code Section 271, the second debtor, which must be joined with the debtor. 1 and the debt repayment under the said judgment to the Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand The former plaintiff and the external creditor. Is not a person or a person to win a case as provided in Section 271 Civil Code and not in the position to request enforcement of the judgment. There is no provision of law that grants rights to debtors 2 and creditors who are not the party or the person who wins the case into the creditor under the aforementioned judgment on behalf of the plaintiff. The Emergency Decree on Asset Management Company BE 2541, the Emergency Decree on Thai Asset Management Corporation BE 2544 (2001), granted to financial institutions or asset management companies or Thai Asset Management Corporation According to the judgment of the plaintiff, the defendant has no right to claim the debt. The debtor 2 and the creditor according to Section 303 first paragraph. In addition, the legal relationship between the debtor 1 and the second debt in the debt is based on the fact that the debtor 2 contract debt. Loan agreement between the debtor 1 and the Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand former plaintiff. The misconduct of the debtors. The second debtor has paid the money to T.Thailand Plc. The plaintiff in the Civil Court of Thailand, the former plaintiff in the civil case is the remuneration for the transfer of claim is 3,000,000 baht. To transfer the claim in the debtor's debt to the second debtor, the second debtor, who is entitled to claim to the debtor, the guarantor. The pledge of the mortgage and other debts, according to the judgment of the sole. It results in the rights and liabilities of the debt falling to the same person as the second debt and the debt is suspended for the second debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 295, paragraph two. , 353, which resulted in the second debtor to pay the amount of the debt repayment under the aforementioned repayment of the debtor, which is a first class debtors under Section 693 only. Debtors 2 and T.Thanklang have entered into a debt transfer agreement under the said judgment. By agreeing to the second debtor is entitled to claim the debtor, one other guarantor and mortgage pledge to repay the debt in full in total. $ 71,728,342.42 instead. It is legal acts that are traded. The purpose is to contradict public order and morals. Section 150 of the Civil and Commercial Code. The creditor is not in the position as the transferee of the right to claim under the judgment as stated by the law. Therefore, there is no right to apply for debt repayment according to the judgment of the Property Division of the debtor.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4727/2559.

The plaintiff agreed to contract by the amount of up to 400,000 baht to the defendant because it is confident that the first and second defendants, who are high ranking military officials, can lobby or assist Mr. A. Military service as a recruiting assistant. It is not a straightforward way to go through the channels or processes, as in the case of regular general examination. The money is provided to pay or to take the applicant to take the exam and take the exam as the plaintiff does not. The circumstances indicate that the plaintiff to pay a large number of defendants, it is intended that the defendants 1 and 2 to bring the money to the competent officials involved in the examination. To motivate any action that does not like the duty. To facilitate Mr. A. has entered the service. Or the plaintiff would expect that the defendants 1 and 2 would have to bring the money to the competent authority to commit the wrong. The support to the corrupt officials and misconduct in the government to promote the patronage system. At the same time, it completely destroyed the moral system. Cause serious damage to the government. Deposit Agreement Between the plaintiff and the defendant is a legal act that is intended to be contrary to public order or good morals. Void under Section 150, and even under the contract of work will specify that "the contractor (the defendant) agrees that the money paid by the plaintiff (plaintiff) under Clause 4 is not the money the contractee. To bring to the authorities to induce any action that does not like the duty to allow Mr. A. to serve as a recruiting assistant. "It may be the purpose of neglecting peaceful purposes. Public morality or not.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2120/2559.

The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to lease land while within the period of legal transfer prohibited. According to the nature of the contract, the right to demand that the defendant register the transfer of ownership of land and lose the right to possession of land, contrary to the intent of the law requires that the land use rights to the land and housing. career And the circumstances of the plaintiff and the defendant before the contract to apply for registration of land transfer, but can not be done because of the transfer agreement. It is a legal act that is intended to transfer the land. Although the conditions for registration of the transfer of ownership when the payment of the full payment of the lease after the period of legal transfer. It is a deliberate circumvention of the statutory prohibitions of transfer. Is a legal act that is prohibited by law void under Section 150 of the plaintiff can not raise the law as a void as an excuse to force the defendant to transfer the land to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 438/2559.

Section 303 stipulates that the claim that you will be able to transfer it. The condition of the right will not open the channel to transfer it. Although the law gives the creditor the right to transfer the claim against the debtor to the transferee. It does not stipulate that the transfer of claims shall be remunerated and that the transferee must be a financial institution or asset management company and must be a vested interest in the amount of the debt transferred. But the law has an exception. If the condition of the claim itself is not open to the transfer or individual rights or the law does not transfer, then it can not be done in accordance with the provisions of the said section. The claim that the plaintiff transferred from the Asset Management Company is a claim by the bank to the Company, including the claim that the bank filed a lawsuit against the Company to the Court of Intellectual Property. The case is under consideration by the court. In addition, the plaintiff purchased the impaired assets, this case has a debt of approximately 312 million baht, purchased only 30 million baht, which is much lower than the debt. Therefore, the transfer of claims between the plaintiff and the asset management company. The transfer of the right to claim the same, usually under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 303, paragraph one, but the transaction in the litigation of the two cases to the company. The plaintiff is not an asset management company. Asset Management Company, 1998, or a juristic person who has the power to make a contract to transfer the right to claim in debt or non-performing assets to be managed or sold to transfer. The transfer of the claim of the plaintiff is contrary to the public order or moral good of the people are void under Section 150

Judgment of the Supreme Court 120/2559.

According to the sales contract of the land registered with the competent official stated that the defendant sold only land not related to the building number 252, which must be translated as excluding the home without the house number. Therefore, the sale of land only. The plaintiff is claiming that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to sell the land with two houses is 252 house with no home number 1, but the competent official said that registered the sale of two houses can not because it must be priced. only the sale of land The plaintiff and the defendant has entered into two additional house purchase agreements as agreed in the trading agreement. The sale contract is a type of contract must have the provisions of the trade as well, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 456 paragraph one stipulates that the sale of real estate must be made in writing and registered with the competent. Otherwise void When the sale of both houses is not registered with the competent authority, it is void. In addition, the land sale agreement. And contracts Doing the same thing clearly shows that the parties wish to avoid the fee. It is an act that is contrary to public order and good morals. So it is void in accordance with Section 150, so the plaintiff can not claim that the two houses are the ownership of the plaintiff by the merger. The plaintiff has no ownership in the two houses.

The parties did not agree to sell the house number 252 with the house is still owned by the defendant without falling into the land. And the case is not required by Section 1310 because this case is not the defendant planted house number 252 in the land of the plaintiff. Even after the sale of the defendant will be added to the house after it. When the plaintiff does not wish the defendant to stay in the land of the plaintiff anymore. The defendant had to dismantle the house after the plaintiff's land.

The house has no numbers. At the contract of sale land without house number at home is still under construction. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to build the house in the land sold by the plaintiff did not prohibit. The defendant, the builder, will understand that he has the right to build up until the completion of the contract by the sale that he has the right to redeem the land within the contract. No house number of the defendant's house is built in the property of others in good faith. But when the sale agreement, the defendant does not redeem within the deadline. Land that is sold to the plaintiff is strictly prohibited. There are no laws to apply directly. The law is very close to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, paragraph two of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1310, paragraph one, the plaintiff is the owner of the land. But the cost of land is only increased because the building to the defendant. And the plaintiff let the defendant to build a house in the plaintiff's land without restraint, the plaintiff's negligence in the building of the defendant's house. The plaintiff can not refuse to accept it. And the land value added to the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14595/2558.

Type 12 Mortgage Chapter 5 Rights and obligations of the transferee of mortgage assets. Section 736 to Section 743 provides a guarantee of the rights and obligations of the transferee mortgaged property will show that the mortgagor shall have the right to transfer the property. Mortgage to another person as the mortgage holder of the property under the mortgage under Section 705 mortgagee has the right to sell the property. The under Section 1336 and Section 702, Paragraph two of this case do not have the registration of the transfer of the disputed land from. To the official. And the mortgagee filed a mortgage and mortgage registration to the case can not be adjusted to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 722, which is to remove the right to register. If the mortgage is damaged, the damage. It is a matter that the mortgagee must go to the mortgagor to continue. The mortgagor has the right to dedicate the land disputes to the government when the government has devoted the land disputes to the government to build a child development center. Department of Community Development Later transferred rights and duties to the defendant. Dispute land is the public domain of the property for the benefit of the land, especially since the date of the intention to give the Civil Section 1304 (3) without the need to register the transfer to the competent official. Section 525. The devotion of the land disputes to the government so lawful.

Dispute land is a public domain of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1305 that the property of the public domain will be transferred to each other. Except for the power of specific laws or ordinances, so the auction of land only land disputes. It is the sale of property that is expressly prohibited by law, thus void under Section 150 of the Commercial Bank. The buyer of the property by the auction. It is not protected and not ownership of the land disputes and no transfer of land disputes to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled to the same. Even the plaintiff will buy the land later disputed in good faith. And compensation. Because the transferee is no better than the transfer.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13566/2558.

Defendant 1 is united or is the same person as the church as the holder of the land and the dispute building, which is the church and land where the churches of the church are located. When the defendant has shown intention to dedicate land and buildings to the public domain. For citizens sharing It is the property of the land to be sold to transfer can not. Unless there is a law giving authority or a decree. Therefore, the defendant to sell to the plaintiff is void, even if the plaintiff will have the ownership of the land and the dispute by the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling, it did not work. The plaintiff is not the owner of the land and the dispute, so the plaintiff will take the Supreme Court to force the evictions of four hundred and thirty-two petitioners out of the land and the dispute, the defendant is not the landlord because the land and Disputes are the public domain of the four hundred and thirty two occupiers, who are entitled to use them. The four hundred and thirty-two singers can express their special power. The four hundred thirty-two petitioners are not the defendant's family. The Supreme Court has no binding four hundred thirty-two petitioners.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13416/2558.

The contract has a mind. If the contract term ends. Prohibited defendants work in any position or assist any other company in Thailand as a competitor. The watch is a two-year watchman's watch manufacturer. The deal is only a restriction on occupational competition with the plaintiff. It is not prohibited to engage in occupations that are closed to the defendant's defense, and the defendant is able to work or work in the company engaged in the business of selling other goods or services beyond the agreement. The area is prohibited only in Thailand. The nature of such an agreement is not to cut the occupation of the defendant. But it is forbidden to engage in certain occupations which are only competitions with the plaintiff for a period of time. It is a reciprocal agreement that protects the rights and benefits of the parties in the conduct of business. Do not close the way to do any of the parties can not exist. It is not against the peace or good morals of the people are not invalid.

  The agreement to prohibit the defendant from working after the termination of his employment as an employee of the plaintiff is an agreement to limit the defendant's rights. It must be interpreted in strict terms. When the terms of the employment agreement prohibiting the defendant from entering into employment or assisting any other company, the competitor of the plaintiff is prohibited only to companies that produce watches. The defendant resigned from being an employee of the plaintiff and then went to work with the company that operates the production line watch for export. Yes, the company that manufactures the housing, as the contract does not prohibit it. The work of the defendant against the company is not a breach of contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 12851/2558.

When a bankruptcy company is a bankrupt. The Official Receiver shall have the power and duty to collect and dispose of the assets of such company in accordance with the method prescribed in Chapter 4 on the property management method of the debtor. Bankruptcy Act, 1940, Section 123 provides the power to the official receiver to sell the property collected in the most convenient and effective way, provided that the sale by any means other than the auction. Approved by the creditor. The fact that the Official Receiver is selling the claim of the company incorporated by other means, according to the resolution of the meeting of creditors, is to act as provided for by law. The transfer of claims under the lease agreement is binding on the plaintiff, the bidder to buy the right to claim from the sale of the official receiver and the defendant, the lease and the guarantor, the debtor of the claim.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 12620/2558.

The Labor Protection Act, BE 2541 (1998), Section 10, paragraph two, stipulates that in the case of an employer calling or receiving a guarantee to compensate the employee for damages. When the employer terminates Or employee resigned Or the end of life insurance contract, the employer shall return the collateral to the employee. Means that the employer must return the collateral to the employee. The employer will be entitled to deduct any non-working compensation from the employer.

Even the plaintiffs allow the defendant to deduct the pledge of the plaintiff's work to pay the plaintiff's personal accident insurance. The defendant did not have to return the collateral to the plaintiff, not the debt to the defendant against work. The Labor Protection Act, BE 2541 (1998), Section 10, paragraph two, is a law relating to public order. Agreement is void. Not applicable When the defendant terminates the plaintiff, the plaintiff has to repay the plaintiff's work in full.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5789/2558.

The Court of First Instance has a civil judgment in another phrase to split the ownership of the land disputes by agreeing to divide before. If agreed not to bid between the bidder to the high bidder to all. If the auction is not between the auction site and then sold the money. The meeting agreed that the auctioneer must pay 5% of the auction price within 15 days from the auction date. If the remaining money is not placed, the confiscated payment officer. The money is divided between the holder of the title, the bidder has no right to receive money in this section. The auction agreement is the intention of the jointly agreed owner of the legal act to make the auction of property with a smooth ownership. It is not contrary to public order or morality. The liability of the bidder is not paid first. There are no specific provisions of the law. The law is similar to that of the provisions in the Civil and Commercial Code Book 1, Section 4, Section 3, auction without provisions for the fighters are liable for the money to put the first. This is only Section 516 when the plaintiff sued the plaintiff to enforce the defendant liable for the money required to place the first block in accordance with the auction. No force. The defendant failed to sue for the lack of funds when the auction was repeated again in accordance with Section 516 of the plaintiff sued the case is not enforceable. Defendant must not be liable to the plaintiff sued.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3736/2558.

The plaintiff and the defendant 1 by the defendant, the two defendants to act on behalf of the defendant agreed to buy and sell 3 plots of land, including buildings and other assets as specified in the contract at a total price of 56,000,000 baht, the defendant is 1. The fee for the transfer of ownership of the property. Under the contract to buy and sell land lot 1 and 3 stated that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to register the transfer of land ownership as land valuation of the land office Phra Pradaeng district is the criterion. The fact that the plaintiff and defendant 1 filed the application for registration of rights and juristic acts in Article 5 (3), stating that the sale of land only exclude buildings that do not match the fact that the defendant testified that if the plaintiff wanted to register the transfer. Buildings The plaintiff is responsible for the additional fee of approximately 1,000,000 baht. The action of the plaintiff and the two defendants agreed in accordance with the contract in Article 3 indicates that the fee and the tax for the transfer of ownership of land and buildings. Trading Such agreement is intended to be expressly prohibited by law and contrary to public order of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150, as well as agreements on the purchase of land, including buildings and other assets under Clause 1 Even if it is done by law. However, when the agreement in Article 3 is no longer enforceable, it is impossible to transfer the ownership of such property. The agreement in Article 1 is also void in accordance with such provisions. The plaintiff or the defendant both have no right and duty to each other, so it can not force the other party to comply with the contract or claim damages. Both defendants must pay a deposit of 5,600,000 baht to the plaintiff, which is not the case arising from the termination of the contract. The defendants are not liable with interest.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2208/2558.

Use of claims or lawsuits regarding guarantees. The Civil and Commercial Code has no specific age, so it must be 10 years of age under Section 193/30. Claims under the Guarantee Agreement must be made within 15 days from the end of the contract. The text can be considered as an age agreement under Section 193/11, contrary to the law relating to public order. Void under Section 150

Judgment of the Supreme Court 17923/2557.

Even if the contract is 1, the contract will indicate that the lease. But when considering the essence of the content. Yes, it is the plaintiffs both want to occupy the land to use or benefit in the land for a specified period. And the plaintiff has given money to the defendant for the purpose of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 537 is not true. The purpose of the contract focuses on the transfer of ownership or ownership of land from the defendant to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 453 is a contract. The contract is not a contract, not a contract.

Both plaintiffs are aliens. The purchase of land so that the legal entity established under Thai law is entitled to land in lieu of the two plaintiffs. A juristic person holds the right to land only in name. Indeed, both plaintiffs are still occupiers of land, to avoid the exclusion of alien land. The contract is therefore expressly prohibited by Section 86 of the Land Act. Such provision is a law relating to peace. The contract is void under Section 150

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15533/2557.

It is commonly known that corporate governance, whether public or private. Selecting a person to move, or to consider merit, will require virtue. And to follow the rules. To get good people to do that is beneficial to the organization. Society and Nation The National Police Agency is an important government agency. It has the duty to prevent and suppress the crime. Healing for the people. It is also the first stage of the judicial process or the cornerstone of the justice process that must be brought to justice in the society. If the police department has a misbehaving police In fact, it is not the only one. According to the memorandum between the plaintiff and the defendant. No text at all, the plaintiff asked the defendant to make the plaintiff's authority to understand the correct. Back to the defendant to speak to the supervisor or adult in the country known about advancement in the position of the plaintiff fully. By contract, the responsible person receives the highest position. And if the plaintiff asked for help. The defendant must provide convenience and assistance to the plaintiff has a higher position, regardless of the law. Rules and procedures of the government. Memorandum of the agreement is contrary to public order or good morals are void, can not be enforceable under Section 150

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5625/2557.

Lottery sales are subject to the provisions of the law prohibiting and imposing penalties on those who offer or sell the lottery over the price specified in the lottery to two versions of the Gambling Act BE 2478 Section 9 bis. Penalties under Section 9 ter shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month. Or fine not exceeding one thousand baht In accordance with the Government Lottery Office Act, BE 2517 (1974), Section 39 shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two thousand Baht. The defendant entered into a lottery contract with the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to sell the lottery to the defendant at a price of 90 baht or 45 baht per share, but the price in the lottery is only 80 baht per copy or 40 baht per lot. It is the purpose of the law to prohibit the two. And it is void under Section 150, even if the voluntary trading lottery prices higher than the lottery. Because there are problems with the system of distribution of the lottery and enforcement of the law prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets over. The sale is over-priced. It is an exception to make the sale of the lottery over the price is not prohibited by the provisions of the law.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 566/2056.

A divorce agreement may be filed at the time of the divorce. The registrar can save it or not. There is no provision requiring that the sharing agreement be made in the presence of registrar or must be in writing. To hear that there is an agreement to share the Sin Somros. It must be considered by both witnesses and the circumstances of each case. The circumstances of the plaintiff and the defendant each possession of each separate transaction. And have the obligation to pay debts on the property that he held after the divorce until the time the plaintiff sued for nearly five years, although no evidence of a settlement agreement while divorce registration, but the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to share the property. The two sins, including debt to the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to share the Sin Somros. As a result, each party has the property and debt obligations to pay debts that are more common than the other party, which is different from the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1533 and Section 1535, but not a provision on peace. The morality of the people under Section 151 of the agreement will be effective and not void.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4912/2554.

The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to hire a contract and guarantee without violating the power of the owner of the leased property. Even the plaintiff who is the leasing party will not be the owner of the leased property, which is different from the provisions of Section 572 of the Civil and Commercial Code No. 5, hire-purchase that only property owners will be the lease. However, this case is unique by the owner of the property, the consent does not constitute a violation of public order and morals of the people and Section 572 is not a law relating to public order and morals. Although the lease agreement is different from the provisions of the law, Section 572, but it is a lease agreement that the non-owner lease with the consent of the owner of the property to take out the lease, so not void, binding the parties.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 5690/2552.

The defendant registered the plaintiff's divorce for the purpose of taxation, but still living. And dependent care as well as divorce is not the intention to deceive with the equation between knowledge of the divorce would be null and void. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155 complaint, the plaintiff claims that the divorce is invalid and requests made by division into a. Thus for the management of Sinsomrns with which the defendant has the right to request as long as the plaintiff. As far as the plaintiff and the defendant still has a husband and wife as well live. This is not the case and claims that must be done within the time prescribed by law under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193 / 9.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 4686/2552.

When a contract of sale of land to act camouflage act of borrowing money is a legal act. The void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph one of the defendant forced the plaintiff to ask for both payment of sale price of land etc. Loan can not But enforcement of the act of borrowing money that was camouflage in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph two, holding only that a contract of sale of land is evidence that the plaintiff two loans from the defendant and plaintiff both donated plot of land their. take the defendant as collateral for a loan only for land sale between the plaintiff and the defendant both at the void like to be absent from the court sentenced the defendant to withdraw waste continues to hold title deed of the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff until the two will settle the loan and interest to the defendant required.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 805/2552.

Check the amount of capital in debt by creditors who are bound to be paid. Debt to creditors of the debtor and creditor payments to the debtor instead. Prior to the date that the debtor is a court ordered receivership in bankruptcy matters before the final of the Nonthaburi Provincial Court. And not the creditors to obtain such debt repayment to Official receivership. Until the Nonthaburi Provincial Court order approving the compromise with the debtor prior to bankruptcy. The compromise that bind all creditors on debt repayment, which may request it to be binding on the lender's existing debt repayment instead of the debtor and the result. Releasing the debtor from debts only But after the bankruptcy and debtor relief. Debtors to creditors a letter disputing the debt settlement agreement allows the principal amount of 22,750,000 baht check that the debtor actually owe creditors and debtors do not pay back its creditors, disputing the book that act by the debtor is made voluntarily. Aimed directly binding on creditors Relations Law to reimburse the creditors and Force each other as valid under the law. Document is not received by bank check liability Thor The accounts payable given to creditors during the debtor remains in state down Which dissolved the act relating to the business and assets of the debtor violation. Bankruptcy Act BE 2483, Section 24, which is not void. Creditor is entitled to receive payment under a letter disputing the principal 22,750,000 THB

The agreement with the debtor to pay interest to creditors 15 percent per year from the date of April 24, 2532 until full payment is made. Agreement back to the interest payable to the accounts payable on checks. Presented to creditors on April 24, 2532, which is in the debtor is in bankruptcy. The agreement holds out a check payable to the debtor to the creditor is given a null value called the interest receivable. Agreement in the interest of this Therefore void as well, and the circumstances of the case. The parties intended to give the principal debtor will return to the creditors of 22,750,000 baht completely separate from an agreement on interest is void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 173, creditors are entitled to receive interest during the late percent 7.5 22,750,000 baht per annum of the principal from the date of August 15, 2542 which is the due date until the date the letter disputing the District Court ordered protection. Absolute property of the debtor.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1131/2532.

Editing is not bad and still be considered a true scam under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 124, it still must be in circumstances that the parties should have the duty to tell the truth. Or an expression still contains circumstance which struck the other party. If a project through land Eedtnn to sell or not to buy, not the duties of the text to tell the truth. If it is the duty of the disputed land must be earned themselves seek out the truth even to listen to the facts that will buy still lose deliberately. Editing is not really about the project Eedtnn through the land. The sales person will not know before. If the parties are still free not buy. Promised land, it will not make it up. The actions of the purchase is not the scam under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 124 even though the defendant who has terminated the sale agreement to buy and sell on the plaintiff, a buyer And has notified the plaintiff refund. And the plaintiff did not accept the return. But when the plaintiff is not a fault contract The plaintiff has a legitimate reason not to accept the refund at the time. And it turns out that the defendant is at fault committed by the plaintiff not to terminate the agreement if the defendant is to return the deposit to the plaintiff. Defendant was required to pay interest with From the date of filing of its kind on the defendant in default. Disputed issues in the Appeals and revision is requested to comply with the purchase and sale agreement by asking the defendant forced the plaintiff to transfer the disputed land. And paying the agreed price of land traded to the plaintiff's case is a capital cost of land under dispute.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1871/2549.

Asst. The defendant to act. The memorandum of agreement on ownership. (Compensation) is a message that the defendant pay compensation to pass. Amount of 1,600,000 baht and through. Registration of ownership to the defendant of 2000, but the defendant did not provide for compensation of the past. It through. Registration includes transfer to the defendant without any compensation. Agreement, but the trick is not to father a child to hold the plaintiff to know that through. Memorandum of agreement. The land acts as a camouflage to the defendant to act give

The act is intended to camouflage the act another. The first act is a memorandum of agreement on ownership. (Compensation), the right of the intention to deceive by collusive between the parties. Such acts shall be null and void. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, first paragraph, the act is to camouflage the contract to enforce the provisions of the law is secret According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph two of the past.Registration of ownership agreement. (Compensation), which aims to transfer the property as well as to act. Would hold that the registration of the ownership agreement is a written and registered for the act of camouflage by Acts to raise the land to pass. The defendant can not be null and void.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 530/2546.

The same defendant is the owner of the land and house disputes mortgaged to banks a. And the defendant owe the plaintiff a number of loans to banks a. Dyong the defendant to pay the mortgage debt. Defendant has agreed to sell land and house contract dispute to the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff to the mortgage banking Thor The debt repayment agreement instead of the plaintiff to the defendant on the plaintiff to pay complete transfer of land and houses, so disputing the defendant returned home sales contract and land disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant made with actual intent. But the conditions for transfer back the agreement is enforceable Trading houses and the land is not the intention to deceive. But when the defendant did not have debt repayment instead of the plaintiff. And the plaintiff, the owner does not wish to cast the defendant in the disputed land and home again. The plaintiff shall have the right to sue the defendant and the family drove away from the disputed land and houses.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1156/2545.

While the second defendant to register the sale of land from the defendant, a defendant does not know that two acts of land between the plaintiff and the defendant. 1 2 is intended to deceive the defendant is a third party who acts in good faith and be damaged by the fraudulent intent. The plaintiff has not set up a defense on the intention to deceive the defendant. 2 according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph one of the plaintiff it can not revoke the act of sale. Once the sale is valid under the law, a defendant is not transferred to the redemption of the defendant, the defendant, 3 2 3: Defendant sold to the four acts of the defendant and the transaction is not revoked as well.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 2711/2544.

Defendant intended the plaintiff to a contract of sale of land disputes do not intend to be bound by an agreement to sell land to set aside disputes that an agreement to sell the land, thus the intention to deceive by collusive void between the plaintiff and defendant under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph. The contract of sale is a camouflage to the sales contract was void as well. Because it is not registered with the competent official under Section 155 and Section 152 paragraph two, when the contracts are void and will be made. The plaintiff accused is returned to the same case as to enforce the provisions on Lapamicyrnadg. The plaintiff must be refunded to the defendant. Defendant to the plaintiff to return the land dispute.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 165/2544.

Land dispute is the plaintiff's original two plaintiffs named by the two ownership. Both the plaintiff and the mortgage loan to the bank to land disputes. But the plaintiff is unable to pay debts at 2, so the land transfer dispute Enter the first and second defendants to prevent enforcement of mortgage bank and defendants 1 and 2 are mortgaged as collateral for bank loans on the other. Later, the plaintiff sued two defendants asked the court to force the first and second registered mortgage and redeem the land ownership dispute to the plaintiff both Between the defendants 1 and 2 listed redeem the mortgage and then transferred to the defendant to 3 to 5, this is the intention to deceive the equation is known, between the plaintiff, both defendants 1 and 2, the void, but will move up to. a defense to third parties who act in good faith and to damage of the intention to deceive is not under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph one, so the burden of proof then falls to the plaintiff, both of which will have to attest to the bad faith of the defendant. 3 to 5, which is a third party.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 6886/2542.

Tsu purpose of the insurance contract between the plaintiff and the defendant would go to the purpose. Insurance car hire the plaintiff as the duration of the lease. More important than the start date of the policy in a letter printed in the policy. Although the lease start date of the contract start date of the policy after a period of 9 days, it is time to overlap slightly. The date of the insurance contract interpretation that would be a real focus of intention. More than words and expressions of the parties or the letters from the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 171, this case must be construed as an insurance contract between the plaintiff and the defendant had made at the first plaintiff as the hire car that the plaintiff assured the defendant. Tsu d interpretation of this is also consistent with the principles of contract interpretation in cases of doubt. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 11 will be interpreted in a way that you are the plaintiff, a party that is to pay the debt is a case holding that the plaintiff assured the stakeholders in the event that insurance while contract insurance with the defendant. Insurance contract between the plaintiff and the defendant has committed both parties. When not appear subsidiaries.The lease was intended to show the benefits under the policy. The plaintiff insured remains stakeholders and are entitled to compensation under the policy from the defendant when the casualty insurer in accordance with the contract. The plaintiff shall have the power to take legal action claims the defendants. Although the policy specifies that an insurance policy in force at the end of the insured vehicle was transferred to another person. Since the plaintiff's contract rights under the lease transferred to Wed Plaintiff's wife, because cards are required for the car using a shortcut through the Air Force only. But after the transfer of rights to purchase such. The plaintiff is still a vehicle occupant and the insurance is paid following the purchase all along that the plaintiff Wed His wife, the plaintiff does not intend to transfer the right to hire after all. The transfer is a fraudulent intent to obtain a card for the car using a shortcut through the Air Force only. Transfer of rights to purchase such waste is void from the beginning to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph one of the plaintiff still has status The lease is a true all the time and still have the right to claim under the insurance policy is the same. And even if to hear that the plaintiff was transferred to the leasing rights. But leasing is not transferred ownership of the car hire to other persons as specified in the policy. Assignee lease still has the right to claim under the insurance policy. Then the policy is not effective to the end.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 3763/2542.

Circumstance that a defendant agreed to allow automobile sales contract dispute to the plaintiff for the plaintiff to the S. Purchase more then one. As a way to do business with one of the defendants 1 and the plaintiff never treat each other several times, so even if the plaintiff is aware that the defendant, a non-car owners dispute as a contract vehicle that the defendant first had to be bound by the agreement. that was the intention to come out, it is claimed that the intention to deceive the plaintiff knows the equation to trick or deceive others astray can not Because the seller is not required when the property owner contracts.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 4074/2541.

Both defendants loan and mortgage loan insurance with the plaintiff and the defendant, 2 deposit with the plaintiff for the purpose. In order to give the plaintiff acted as brokers and agents in. Trading 2 for the defendant, using promissory notes. As collateral for the trading of these securities. Camouflage is not the act or acts done with intent to deceive mortgage loan agreement and promised land and buildings as security is as valid under the law. Both the defendant is liable under the mortgage loan and the contract.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1201/2541.

OK, done before the policy. The plaintiff and the defendant have agreed that the plaintiff accept insurance premiums of 30 percent and total compensation to the defendant itself from the date of June 8, 2536 until December 30, 2536, but according to policy. Assigned to the defendant to pay all premiums and compensation to the plaintiff is a lifetime contract. Of the intention to make such an insurance policy. It is the intention to deceive. The plaintiff and the defendant collusive made to trick people that the defendant is insured. And the plaintiff as compensation to third parties. The policy is void. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph one of the accused, the parties have raised up against the plaintiff. When the defendant has paid premiums to the plaintiff and 30 percent called the plaintiff has no right to sue the rest of the premium from defendant.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 5830/2540.

Case under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 154 is a matter between the parties themselves. Creditor who is chairman of the debtor and the mortgaged property as security guarantees debts of the debtor. Later, taking a letter to creditors recourse. And waiver of subrogation those creditors over debtors every rank given to the debtor company. As the Bank of Thailand to make the business of the debtor and creditors that the debtor has money to buy land owned by private creditors and the creditor to the debtor's management will continue. Even if an intent to deceive with receivables equations do know the books that matter. But when the Bank of Thailand and other creditors, a third party is made in good faith and intent to damage, but the trick is to believe that the creditor has forfeited the real Creditors are forbidden to raise an invalid as a defense to this. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, first paragraph, as creditors are unable to obtain payment such as Bankruptcy Act BE 2483, Section 94.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 4224/2540.

The plaintiff, as owner of the land and buildings to sue for the court to revoke the act of registration of ownership of land and buildings that disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant, a 2, and the defendant, one of two defendants to three and let Redemption of mortgage of the four defendants to the ownership in land and buildings back to the plaintiff as it was It is considered that the plaintiff in the lawsuit known as a property owner take property back from the track have no right to rely on the Civil and Commercial Code Section 1336 which has no age limit, and not a property called base Lapamicyrnadg night. Does not terminate the plaintiff sued.

The plaintiff's ownership of disputed land with buildings for 1 to 2 for the defendant to the defendant that a land dispute with the two buildings is mortgage loan insurance, instead of the plaintiff. When successful, it will transfer the land dispute with the building back the plaintiff. Considered that the transfer of land disputes created by the intention to deceive.

The three defendants had sued the plaintiff in this case drove out of the land and building disputes. The Court has a final ruling that the three defendants with purchasing the land dispute that the defendant knew that the first two but have owned a representative plaintiff. Judgement of the said case is binding on the plaintiff and defendant in this case, a third party in the lawsuit. Code of Civil Procedure Section 145.

4, the mortgagee when the defendant is a person who acts in good faith outside the four defendants are protected by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155 the Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant to four co-transfer of land disputes with the building back the plaintiff is not like

Judgement of the Supreme Court 2976/2548.

The plaintiff the defendant made an agreement to buy land and filed an application for registration of land and official. Defendant was able to witness to the fact that the successor has a loan agreement together. Not prohibited by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 94 paragraph two, because it would attest that the contract is the act secret To enforce the actual contract is a contract loan.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 6255/2546.

Describe the plaintiff sued claiming that the plaintiff contracted to sell land to the defendant by a contract would do next. However, the two defendants to deceive the plaintiff contracted mortgage The plaintiff did not receive money under the mortgage and mortgage do not intend to act. Asked to withdraw the contract mortgage Both the defendant and that the mortgage agreement is done by faith and love. No The party aside by it. There is no issue in dispute that the agreement acts as a mortgage or camouflage. The problem is that the mortgage contract or act camouflage. Not a problem concerning the public peace. The lower court addressed two issues that act as camouflage in the mortgage contract decision. This decision is out of action unthinkable Privacy statement prohibited by the Civil Code, Section 142, paragraph one

Plaintiff intends to act without the intent to sell land to act over land to the defendant to two contracts, so the plaintiff's mortgage is a mistake made by what is the essence of the act. Mortgage contract is void. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 156, paragraph one

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1156/2545.

When the defendant second listed for sale with land from the defendant, one that accused the two did not know that the act of transfer of land between the plaintiff and owner of the land to the defendant 1 was intentionally deceive also accused the two purchased deposited at a price higher than the price. evaluated very That the defendant would not listen to the second transfer of land in bad faith is the second defendant, third parties who act in good faith and be damaged by the fraudulent intent. The plaintiff can not raise a defense of the intention to deceive on the second defendant as the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph one, and may not revoke the act of sale. Once the sale is valid under the law, a defendant is not transferred to the redemption of the defendant, the defendant, 3 2 3: Defendant sold to the defendant, 4 acts as the trading and may not be revoked as well.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 6532/2544.

Provisions of the Land Act, Section 31 is intended to protect people who have the right to land and the land on the land for at least 10 years and within this period, the government also controls the land is located. Do not let the right woman for possession until the termination time is governed not transfer, so the plaintiff will not be taking or transfer the possessory right or contract, any one result or look in the taking or transfer, or may be bought or forced to transfer it. When the plaintiff contracted to buy land dispute within a period not transfer. Despite an agreement to buy the land will be bought or transferred out in the day time and not transfer any. I deliberately avoid the transfer nor prohibited by law. The purpose of the act that is expressly prohibited by law. Therefore void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150 of the contract of mortgage insurance, obviously. The plaintiff and defendant in the amount of mortgage insurance as the price quoted. The agreement established the right above the ground works on the same day as the purchase and sale agreement. Can see that the contract of mortgage insurance contracts and established the right above the ground acts as a camouflage the purchase and sale agreement by the parties do not intend on mortgage commitments and rights over land. The contract is void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155.

The plaintiff has no right to take or transfer of land bought or dispute to the defendant within a period not to transfer, including taking possession of land disputes in this period, it can not do so. To take possession of the land dispute has held that the defendant's possession of the defendant represented the plaintiff. Does not consider the defendant taking possession of disputed land from the plaintiff the plaintiff has the power to sue defendants. Litigation is not the case, which took possession of the night must be filed within one year from the time of the taking of possession under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1375, paragraph two

When an agreement to buy land disputes. Land contract mortgage insurance contracts and established the right above the ground. The act is void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150 and Section 155 plaintiffs who are entitled to possession of land disputes. It is the stakeholders would like to set up a contract void by the plaintiff's claim was filed asking the court ruled that such contracts are void, therefore it is not exercised in bad faith.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 5236/2542.

Land lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant has two objectives, and residential construction. When the Interior Ministerial No. 116, issued under Section 5 of the Planning Act. Undefined prohibit construction of woman and the defendant 2 has contacted the Ministry of Industry and permission to build a factory in the area and therefore can not deny that the lease between the plaintiff and the defendant to two aims need not expressly by law. Will not void the plaintiff sued the defendant has the power 2 to act as camouflage Civil and Commercial Section 155, paragraph two is that the parties intention to act in two acts. Act out a show to appear, without wishing to be effective under the law. The other acts a camouflage blind to the party intends to act to camouflage covering on the force between each other party in acts camouflage, so there is only one so the lease between the plaintiff and the defendant, 1 and sublease agreement between the defendant: 1. 2 Although the defendant made the same day. But when the party is not the same pair, there is no way to camouflage the act within the meaning of the law.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 6103/2545.

The plaintiff agreed to sell land to the defendant by mistake in a land scam because the commission that a defendant knew or should have known of the fraud it. The plaintiff's mistake in pricing the asset purchase agreement together. Although not a mistake in the nature of the act, a party or a person or property which is the object of the act. But property prices would trade agreement is important enough to the property which is the object of the act. Determines that the plaintiff's intention to act by mistake in what is the essence of the act under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 156.

On land caused by acts of the intention by mistake in which a material act of fraud and caused the same time. But the legal consequences are different. Caused by acts of the intention by mistake in which a significant effect of the act is void under section 156, but acts arising from the intention to effect a fraud because it is void under section 159 must be regarded as null and void act. It is beneficial to the intention to act by more than a void defect.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 957/2540.

According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 156, paragraph two critical mistakes in the material of which the acts will be null and void act. Would be a mistake to act on the individual characteristics of the parties to the act. And property, which is the object of the act. The petitioner claims that do not understand the essence of the property by public auction next mortgage is not a mistake under the provisions of that law. Because of the property by public auction next mortgage or not. The details of the auction, which the petitioner already know. Notification of Enforcement staff auction. Act of buying property to the shareholders of the petitioner. Is not void.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 199/2538.

The plaintiff sued the defendant deceived the plaintiff to make coverage, but to make a land claim agreement in which the mistake is significant acts of the defendant against the plaintiff's land to the defendant denied that plaintiff was not a mistake not find it. Lift up on fraud against the Court of First Instance ruled that not even the intention to petition because of fraud and the defendant in the same way whether it is not considered as items that have been raised as well in civil court Defendants based their illiteracy and ignorance of the elderly and the regulations of the Government of the plaintiff to the plaintiff to act for sale of land disputes and conversions to the defendant and the plaintiff had intended to transfer only the land and permitting only land disputes. is caused by the mistake, which is the essence of what the act is void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 119 originally. (Section 156 revised).

Judgement of the Supreme Court 480/2539.

Corporate foundations are the foundations must be registered as a legal entity when the foundation when he received the transferee is not a legal entity that is deemed to be transferred to a mistake in essence, the act makes the act is. void defendants 1 and 2, the officers who receive complaints under the Land Code, Section 61, shall revoke the registration of acts of a search must make the transfer to the claim for revocation of the Civil and Commercial CANCELLATION. not available before.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 3458/2531.

The employee filed a notification application that false statements, resigned from the same company. But the truth was fired because of absenteeism than three days without reason that This show features falsely cause the employer to believe the qualifications of the employee and agree to be employed as may the business of the employer for damages the employer shall be entitled to termination of employment as required by the application that has no memory must be a. serious damage to their employer first.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 2259/2526.

Although the defendant to accept a compromise agreement for sale of land back to the plaintiff because the plaintiff is mistaken as a descendant of You heritage. It is a mistake on the defendant to the plaintiff's legal status only Is it important to find errors in the properties of people who normally would have a material under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 120 makes a compromise agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is not void.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 40/2516.

The plaintiff sued the defendant forced to comply with permitting a compromise that all three defendants made to plaintiff. Issues against the defendant just that. Because all three defendants agreed to accept a compromise permitting the plaintiff to it. Because all three defendants struck the plaintiff's mistake in the property by the defendant understands that the plaintiff is the lawful wife of the plaintiff is You heritage and has the right to this estate. When the defendant know the truth. That the plaintiff is not legally his wife, the defendant has told Ehgamrndu clear this compromise permitting the plaintiff. Compromise permitting the plaintiff to sue the void is not in effect as though it is true, as defendant claims. It is just as important as a legal wrong to the plaintiff. Is it important to find the wrong person's property. This would normally count as a substance that makes compromise agreement on applicable law to pay under the Civil and Commercial Litigation Section 120138 does not form, so need not listen to evidence the parties in this matter.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 4997/2549.

Appointments listed in the sale of land. Plaintiff to the defendant to a plaintiff to bring more land sale to the defendant to a plaintiff to point to view the land of others, which is adjacent to convert asphalt with the second defendant had brought others to see. This is not a property of the defendant that a defendant has engaged with the second defendant to deceive the plaintiff to purchase the land leave the plaintiff. However, regardless of whether the defendant is the only two omissions of a defendant or the purchase of land from a defendant then sold to the plaintiff. Regardless of whether the plaintiff and profit from the purchase of land or leave. It is not essential to make changes to the case. The plaintiff and the trust land for deposit of a defendant to understand that the land adjacent to an asphalt road by the defendant to the plaintiff's point is not considered gross negligence. If the plaintiff and the intent to purchase land from the defendant deposited by mistake in a property which is the object of the act. Which is the essence of the act. Therefore void under P.WedWed Section 156 is equivalent to the sale of land is not the place. And does not constitute any right to a defendant to take the money of the defendant, a plaintiff must reimburse the plaintiff with interest.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 568/2541.

Car hire from the plaintiff that the defendant is an old car but with conditions satisfactory And the defendant have reviewed the lease, and Auto defendant received the vehicle such as cars, have agreed to do the same with the lease purchase agreement such as this. If it is not a mistake in the property trade. Does not make void the lease of the defendant to review later found that Number, chassis and engine numbers are fake. Registration number does not match the vehicle registration permit the purchase is just as important errors in the properties of the property. Which is typically regarded as a significant cause of acts such as leases void According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 157, when the defendant did not tell the intention to void clear that the plaintiff actively. Hire-purchase agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is still in force. Not find a void. Therefore, the plaintiff terminated the contract and lease. The defendant has the duty to hire deliver the hire car back to the plaintiff in good condition.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 8056/2540.

When it appears that the plaintiff made an agreement to purchase building disputes by understanding that the building that is located on a land plot No. 614 and 616 but did not know before that the building that is located on the land title deed No. 615 even though the defendant will be able to register ownership of Building plot of land disputes with No. 614 and 616 to the plaintiff or not. But with such buildings as the acquisition of land title deeds under the law number 615 with When interpreting these contracts will be traded by the pause and the plaintiff and the defendant in good faith to the usual tradition and then. Must be considered not in the plaintiff's intention to enter into such contract, without the ownership of all property purchased. Should assume the plaintiff entered into an agreement to trade disputes with the building by mistake in the defendant's property assets is essential. Agreement to the transaction is void. When the plaintiff to terminate the agreement is terminated effective as the objects and shall be considered void the contract to be null and void from the beginning. The plaintiff and the defendant must return to the original position. The plaintiff claims the defendant to refund the deposit plus interest to receive. But can not claim with each other.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 6228/2539.

Court had the power to decide whether the signature on the actual power of attorney is signed by the plaintiff or not required expert verification, and is not necessary that the authority to sign on to the power of attorney may be signed before. and even on the sign will not fill completely, but when they fill out completely before the prosecution to meet the wishes of the authority and power of attorney would be available. The plaintiff contracted to buy land and buildings from the defendant to the hotel business, but the defendant did not tell the plaintiff aware of the order of the local official on the defendant to stop construction and demolition of the wrong form to the plaintiff's mistake in the property. Property essential cause a void contract is trading the plaintiff has the right to clear.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1443/2539.

We do not know that permitting the plaintiff to purchase the order prohibiting transfer of the intention to dispute the plaintiff's contract is due to mistake of the features of the property to acquire a significant contract to purchase the plaintiff is void. have a right to clean when washed by the plaintiff the right to terminate the contract. It becomes an agreement to purchase. Must return to the same void as the accused is returned. Deposit to plaintiff.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 237/2539.

The plaintiff contracted to sell land and buildings with the phone to the two defendants to the hotel business, but building dispute is used as a hotel when the plaintiff has changed the terms of the official Bangkok plaintiff has not changed and the lapse of time to fix before. The plaintiff and the defendant both made an agreement to buy and to sell the same 3 years the plaintiff concealed facts which should have let the two defendants in mind, and if the two defendants have known would not have committed to buy and sell by the case can be considered as. Intent with the mistake in the properties of the property, which considered a significant contract to buy and sell is void karma on the two defendants told clearing, would void the parties are restored as the original two defendants is not bound to continue. laboratory under contract to buy and to sell and does not need a check payment disputes that the two defendants ordered to pay settlement to the plaintiff.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 5163/2538.

Land lease contract to dig for the gems of the land leased properties that have come before you dig for gems or not significant on the leased land to dig for gems has come before but tenants to lease By understanding that the land lease is not a dig for gems come before the mistake is the intention of the features of the property which is typically considered a significant void on the lease of land to tenants say karma by giving clear void. terminate the lease and ask for the check given to pay the back rent from the lessor of the lease is void, but first the parties must return to the same as the lessor must return the check to pay rent to tenants.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 257/2537.

Purchase of land by the defendant by the plaintiffs believe that the land scam the public road. No other land is separated. The real property is not adjacent to public road. Intention to consider the defendant by mistake on the properties of property to buy. The land contract is void.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 4919/2536.

Royal Decree to establish guidelines for highway line Klongton - Nong Ngu Hao. And the junction Nong Ngu Hao BE 2524 is the law determines that the petitioner aware of such facts. Petitioner has not claimed that while the petitioner in the auction bidding petitioner did not know the actual text as it is. Is not a mistake in buying property from a property auction Issuance of the decree to expropriate the land area. Is competent to perform the survey prior to the enactment of the Expropriation Act shall apply to property owned by the decree. Have not yet vested in the state. While the auction title to the land auction is the second defendant, and when not to be within the prohibited transfer under the amended Notification of the Revolutionary Council No. 295 BE 2530, then it can act as trade law, even if later there will be a highway for Expropriation Act applies and includes land in the area by land expropriation matter. It is a case that occurred after the auction completed then. The auction is well

Judgement of the Supreme Court 4045/2534.

Defendant ad exaggerated features of a car sold to plaintiffs. As new cars. Just a new paint color is the same reality as the old vehicle. And ever changing colors several times to claim property Vehicle which is not true many respects. The plaintiff agreed to buy a car by the defendant believed the ad exaggerated. Car trading scam that has caused significant errors in the properties of property trading, but still a car brand with the plaintiff to buy. Fraud, the defendant was not the size that, if not a scam, then the plaintiff will not buy a car from the defendant the plaintiff accepted the terms the plaintiff would only harder to claim compensation from the defendants. While managing director of the defendant, a defendant is the father. 2 cars and dealing between the plaintiff and the defendant to do the same two companies that a defendant, but defendant has not a business. The second defendant company had no working relationship with the defendant, an order to buy a car, it appeared that a defendant is made. Constant, but the second defendant's signature signed in as a manager or vendor only Such circumstances. Also held that the defendant is not represented at two of the first defendant or the defendant is a party to participate in the sale of cars with the plaintiff. The legal age is not provided for a compensation. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 123 must be considered as the general rules under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 164, which is scheduled for 10 years.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 3382/2525.

The defendant's right to land is limited because the buildings do not build high voltage power lines through Under the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand BE 2511 the defendant contracted to sell the land to the plaintiff by the plaintiff did not inform the matter to know The plaintiff's misunderstanding of the features of the land, which is a substance that dispute because the plaintiff to purchase the factory building. The intent of the plaintiff is void. When the plaintiff told the contract is clear and therefore void the sale early. Defendant to return money received to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued the defendant concealed the fact that the fraud and take legal action so I washed the land price paid will recover from the defendant. The defendant still did not lose Editing the properties of real property. The plaintiff did not know it would make a mistake in the plaintiff's property to property in which the court ruled that the plaintiff purchased the disputed property by deception in the land can not sue a non-issue out (refer the petition 1034/2518).

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1229/2520.

Defendant contracted to sell land to the plaintiff. Labeled in the agreement that any land not Paraeidpoan which the defendant knows that it is attached land mortgaged to others and cover up this truth. And circumstances that show that if the plaintiff knows the truth this would not have contracted with the defendant surely. Constitutes property of the plaintiff's mistake in the property which is the object of an agreement to purchase, which would normally count as a significant agreement is void.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 6281/2550.

Defendant contracted with the bank loan and pledge agreement the plaintiff due to defendant management of the S. Error and loss and to ask the plaintiff, a shareholder of the Company to continue editing. The defendants have agreed to bring private money to pay its debt to the defendant as administrative errors even when there is coercion or intimidation from the plaintiff to the defendant to criminal proceedings or to close the company. If the defendant refuses to loan agreements and contracts pledging to the plaintiff, it is a threat to the exercise of the usual popular under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 165 shall not constitute a threat under the law to make the loan agreements and contracts pledging between The plaintiff and the defendant becomes void.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 8498/2540.

The second defendant was a broker on a sale of the defendant to the plaintiff to pay a deposit and pay the plaintiff costs of the various land is transferred to the plaintiff. But the hindrance due to the defendant. Can not register a transfer of land to the plaintiff. Is to inform the plaintiff alleged that the two defendants jointly fraud. Then both the plaintiff and the defendant at the police station to negotiate the same one made by the defendant and permitting plaintiffs to recover money. The plaintiff and the defendant police officers who secured two contracts. If you do not take offense to the second defendant then used a legal right in good faith because they have the right to the debt. Which can be considered a threat to the exercise of popular normal. Not constitute a threat under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 165 contract dispute is not guaranteed issue void.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 5594/2536.

The first defendant is the plaintiff's store manager. When the plaintiff found that goods and money in the responsibility of a defendant and the defendant lost the first did not accept responsibility. Threatening to arrest the plaintiff and the defendant that a criminal case alleging misappropriation of the defendant is willing to make a compromise agreement with the plaintiff. As a legitimate right of the plaintiff which should normally exercise their popularity. If it is threatened by an act will not become void. As a result, a compromise agreement in force. Duplicate documents. Considered to be the source document.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 3527/2532.

Compromise agreement with the plaintiff accused the police station by the plaintiff said. "Use the money to waste. If not stick to prosecution and prison, "they said of the plaintiff. "O the lost brother. Possession necessary. If no contact is being sued for jailed "and the officer said. "We adults use the waste. Discipline is otherwise a criminal penalty I "is the story they told him that if the plaintiff and the defendant refuses to pay the plaintiff may sue condone criminal defendants. Which by the exercise of judicial integrity. This threatened to exercise normally popular. It is not a threat to the act is void. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 126 compromise agreement are completely applicable.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1331/2525.

When employees have done indicate that the financial frauds and the employer told the employee to resign or else threatened to prosecute the normal exercise of popular, so when the employee voluntarily resigned. Therefore not be fired by their employers.

Judgement of the Supreme Court 1334/2522.

Plaintiff that the defendant made a compromise agreement. Debt repayment to the defendant pending the purchase of land to the plaintiff. Later, the defendant year period to solve a number of compromise settlement agreement from 2520 and 2521 is marked with a sign. Because they threatened the plaintiff. If the defendant does not solve. Check out the plaintiff to the defendant released to others. The man is in possession of the prosecution of the plaintiff to the defendant no money to check out the base as a menace threatening the plaintiff's right to use normal hits. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 127 does not constitute a threat. The defendant time to solve the debt in the compromise agreement is not void. Force and effect.

Posted in: