Section 32 Any person with
physical or mental disability I do not know. Or drunk alcohol. Or any other
reason. I can not do it myself. Or organize your business in ways that may be detrimental
to your own property or family. When the person referred to in section 28
requests the court, the court shall order the person to be a quasi-incompetent
person.
The person who has been
ordered by the court to be quasi-incompetent under paragraph one. Must be in
the guard. Appointment of guard This is in accordance with the provisions of
Part 5 of this Code.
The provisions on the
termination of guardianship in Chapter 5 of this Code shall apply. Applies to
the termination of guardianship.
The order of the court under
this section. To publish in the Government Gazette.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3184/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant
for the violation of the plaintiff by the father of the plaintiff sued and
prosecuted as a representative. But the fact is that the plaintiff is a suitor
then suing. The plaintiff is not a minor under the parental authority of the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1566, paragraph one, the plaintiff can do
anything without the consent of the prosecutor under Section 2166 But when the
plaintiff sued the disabled, speechless and can not walk. The plaintiff's
father prefers to file a petition to the plaintiff, asking the plaintiff to be
an incompetent or quasi-incompetent person and set up a preschooler or
guardian, as the case may be. As long as there is no court order, the plaintiff
is incompetent or incompetent, it must be considered that the plaintiff is a
person capable of doing any lawful self. Including the lawsuit and prosecution
to the plaintiff's father to sign the plaintiff's lawyer to file a lawsuit
instead of the plaintiff. There is no court order to be the kindergarten or
protector of the plaintiff. As a defect in the ability to comply with the
provisions of Section 56 of the Civil Code, the case must be resolved before.
Section 33 In the case where a
request is made by the court to order any person to be incompetent because of
insanity. If you think that the person is not crazy. But there is no mental
defilement. When the court deems it appropriate, or upon the request of a
partner or person as specified in Section 28, the court may order the person to
be a quasi-incompetent person. Or in the case where the court ordered that any
person is a quasi-incompetent because of mental illness. If it is determined
that the person is insane. Upon the request of a partner or of a person as
specified in Section 28, the court may order that person to be an incompetent
person.
Section 34 quasi-incompetent.
Obtain the consent of the guard first and then do any of the following.
(1) investment property
(2) return property to invest
Money or capital
(3) loan or loan Borrow or
lend valuable movable property.
(4) any warranty whatsoever
resulting in the repayment of the debt
(5) Rent or lease of movable
property for a period exceeding six months. Or real estate for more than three
years.
(6) To provide for charity,
except for the giving of good to the ministry for charity, society or morality.
(7) To be provided with
conditions or charges. Or not get
(8) Perform any act to acquire
or dispose of any right in immovable or movable property.
(9) constructing or modifying
any house or building. Or repairs.
(10) Propose the case to the
court or take any consideration, except for a request under Section 35 or a
request for removal of the trustee.
(11) to compromise or disputes
the arbitral tribunal;
If there are any cases other
than those mentioned in paragraph one. The quasi-incompetent person may handle
the deception on his / her own property or family. To order any person is
quasi-incompetent. Or when the guardian later requested. The court has the
power to order the quasi-incompetent to obtain the consent of the guardian
before doing so.
In the case where the
quasi-incompetent person is unable to do any of the things mentioned in the
first or second paragraph. Because of physical or mental disability. The court
will order the guardian to act on behalf of the quasi-incompetent person. In
such cases. The provisions relating to preschoolers shall apply mutatis mutandis
to the guardians.
The order of the court under
this section. To publish in the Government Gazette.
Any action taken in violation
of this Section. That is void.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
66/2553.
A request that the court orders
that the petitioner be a quasi-incompetent person and to be in the guardian of
the petitioner shall be brought together in advance so that the court may order
the guardian to do any of the things described. In the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 34, paragraph one and paragraph two can not be self. The request
of the petitioner is just a request in advance, but it does not appear that the
actual request. There are no facts to be considered by the court for discretion.
The court has ordered this part of the petitioner.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3184/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant
for the violation of the plaintiff by the father of the plaintiff sued and
prosecuted as a representative. But the fact is that the plaintiff is a suitor
then suing. The plaintiff is not a minor under the parental authority of the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1566, paragraph one, the plaintiff can do
anything without the consent of the prosecutor under Section 2166 But when the
plaintiff sued the disabled, speechless and can not walk. The plaintiff's
father prefers to file a petition to the plaintiff, asking the plaintiff to be
an incompetent or quasi-incompetent person and set up a preschooler or
guardian, as the case may be. As long as there is no court order, the plaintiff
is incompetent or incompetent, it must be considered that the plaintiff is a
person capable of doing any lawful self. Including the lawsuit and prosecution
to the plaintiff's father to sign the plaintiff's lawyer to file a lawsuit
instead of the plaintiff. There is no court order to be the kindergarten or
protector of the plaintiff. As a defect in the ability to comply with the
provisions of Section 56 of the Civil Code, the case must be resolved before.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7755/2549.
Opponents conceal requests for MPs
to be quasi-incompetent. The purpose of the case is to help and protect the
interests of MPs. In addition, the objection is also the power of the father,
who opposed the lawsuit. C. and brothers brothers and sisters of the same
parents with the revocation of the land transfer of the brotherhood of the
brothers. Both the objection has also filed a complaint as guardian of. The
lawsuit against c. The misappropriation of property of the prosecutor to the
prosecution of the prosecution. Prosecution It can not be held that the
objection has been made in private. It's not that the dissenters have a lawsuit
in court with their siblings and siblings, and not the right person to be the
kindergarten.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3247/2542.
The Court of First Instance has
ordered the plaintiff to be incompetent and to remain. In the kindergarten and
the final order, even after the Police Lieutenant to apply to the Court of
First Instance without the objections. Ask the court to order the plaintiff.
Quasi-incompetent and the Court of First Instance has conducted the inquiry and
ordered the plaintiff to be a quasi-incompetent and to be in the guard of the Police
Lieutenant. The order of the court of first instance ordered the plaintiff to
be quasi-incompetent in the protection of the lieutenant colonel. Can not
change, cancel, revoke or cancel the order of the defendant to the plaintiff's
order to be incompetent and to be in kindergarten under the Civil Procedure
Code Section 145. In the case where the plaintiff filed a petition to the Court
of First Instance to withdraw the word. order The plaintiff ordered the
plaintiff to file an objection and the Court of First Instance ordered the
revocation of the order to the plaintiff. However, B. Appeal and the case after
the Supreme Court has reversed the verdict of the Court of Appeal. By order of
the Court of First Instance to withdraw the order to the plaintiff. An
incompetent is to raise the plaintiff's request. This means that The plaintiff
is still an incompetent in the case of the police officer. Asked to withdraw
the plaintiff as a plaintiff. This means that the plaintiff is still the
kindergarten of the same. The plaintiff made a power of attorney to the police.
The plaintiff filed this case, while the plaintiff is still incompetent. In the
kindergarten And the plaintiff sued the plaintiff by claiming that the
plaintiff is a quasi-incompetent by a police lieutenant. The plaintiff has no
power to do it must be the kindergarten teacher who acts on behalf of the
plaintiff, so there is no right to sue the case is a defect in the ability of
the plaintiff and must correct the defect to complete. Within a reasonable time
as the Court of Appeal did not judge because the plaintiff has no power to sue.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8368/2538.
The defendant will not give and
argue that. The defendant did not sell the land disputes to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff deceived the defendant to sign the land dispute disputes with the
power of attorney without filling. The defendant also said that. While the
defendant did this. The defendant can not feel guilty like the guests. The
intent of the defendant is a mistake in what is the substance of the act. Even
the Court of First Instance will determine the issue. The defendant handed over
the land dispute and signed the document at the end of the lawsuit, as well as
the power of attorney to transfer the land dispute by the plaintiff,
fraudulent, which causes the legal act of trading is void. But the defendant
was diagnosed with mental illness and admitted to hospital. I do not have the
right to the court until the court order is a quasi-incompetent. Plaintiff
defrauded the defendant while the defendant was unconscious. To deliver the
land dispute. And signed the land disputes agreement with the power of attorney
by the defendant did not intend to sell the land to the plaintiff. Disputed
land transaction law is void. The case can be considered that. While the
defendant to do so, the defendant is conscious or conscientious, nor is the
issue of the case included in the issue of the Court of First Instance as well
as the plaintiff did not appeal that. At the Court of First Instance, the
diagnosis is a non-issue. Appeal argues that. The plaintiff does not deceive
the defendant and the defendant is completely conscious. It is accepted that
the issue at the Court of First Instance is the issue in the case. So the Court
of Appeal was correcting the issue as the defendant signed the document in the
suit. Can the defendant know the guilt of the public? It is still in the issue
of the case and the Court of Appeal on the issue is a diagnosis outside the
lawsuit. The plaintiff knows that the defendant is not fully conscious. Even if
the illness of the defendant is not so small, can not know the penalties, the
lack of intention to do the law. When the defendant is acting in a conscious
and incomplete manner, and the plaintiff already knows that the land dispute
disputes the defendant made a void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
32 (former) defendant has the right to clear the void as stated in the Civil
and Commercial Code. Commercial Section 137 (former) when the defendant has cleared
within 1 year from the time that may be ratified by the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 143 M) and land contract disputes is void from the very beginning
under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 138, paragraph one (same).
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6107/2538.
The guardian of The
quasi-incompetent is not a representative of There is no power to prosecute
when the plaintiff sued the defendant by signing a lawyer and a lawyer signed
the plaintiff as the plaintiff sued the plaintiff sued by the plaintiff without
the power to prosecute instead of the plaintiff's complaint. It is not in
accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 35, formerly the Court
of First Instance ordered the plaintiff to receive the defendant, the second
and third defendant was filed. These then In the case of the defendant, the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 18 is not enforceable when the case is not
the case, the plaintiff filed a petition to amend the complaint before the
witness testimony. The lawsuit and prosecution instead and the consent of the
court and the plaintiff allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint. The
lawsuit is not complete, but the original. The plaintiff sued.
The plaintiff sued and amended
the complaint. The plaintiff is a quasi-empowered. Defender of the plaintiff
sued the three defendants, the defendant, the first of the defendants, the
second and third defendant of the truck, the defendant's second car, which
entered the transport business with the third defendant with the mark of the
third defendant attached to the car. A sneak peek at a roadside motorcyclist,
the plaintiff drove a motorbike in the middle of the main road, a fallen road,
with no recklessness, watching the car sideways in the middle road. The cause
is that the intersection of Central Road intersection with Soi Road in the Port
Authority of Thailand. Cause the plaintiff to be seriously harmed. The
plaintiff's indictment expressly state the condition of the charge. The
plaintiff sued not covered.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
375/2538.
The person who will clear the void that
the incompetent or the person who has intentionally committed war is made under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 137 was originally a legitimate
representative or guardian. Or the heirs of such persons, that the heirs of
such persons. Such provisions are available only if the incompetent. Or the
intent of the war is to die. So, while the scammer was alive, the defendant,
who was just a lieutenant, It is not the successor of the person, so it is not
authorized to clear the law.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5827/2530.
Defendant is a child shall have the power
to request the court to order the mother is a quasi-incompetent or an
incompetent under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 34 or 29 without the
consent of the plaintiff, the father, the defendant and the mother's mother,
the defendant. Appointing a defendant as guardian or maternity caregiver under
Section 1463, even though the spouse is usually the guardian or the descendant.
Legal or
Section 35 In the case where
the guardian does not consent to the quasi-incompetent person acting under
Section 34 without reasonable grounds. When the quasi-petitioner requests The
court will issue an order authorizing that action without the consent of the
guardian. If that is the benefit to the quasi-incompetent.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6107/2538.
The Guardian of the
Quasi-incompetent The plaintiff sued no lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff sued
the defendant by signing a lawyer and a lawyer signed the plaintiff, the
plaintiff's plaintiff sued the plaintiff instead of being authorized to
prosecute. The plaintiff's complaint is not in accordance with the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 35, formerly the Court of First Instance ordered the
plaintiff to receive the defendant, the second and the defendant. 3 was
submitted to it. In case of a delay in the investigation of the indictment, the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 18 can not apply when the case is not informed.
The plaintiff filed a petition to amend the complaint before the testimony, as
the plaintiff has handed over to prosecute and prosecute the case and the
consent of the plaintiff and the plaintiff allowed the plaintiff to amend the
plaint. The lawsuit is not complete, but the original. The plaintiff sued.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4045/2528.
The case before the defender, the
plaintiff sued the case, instead of the virtual incompetent to divide the
inheritance of virtual incompetent. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff
without the power to sue instead of the virtual as incompetent. The guardian
has only the authority to give consent. Virtual people only In this case, the
plaintiff is the plaintiff sued by the defendant. The plaintiff sued the
defendant is not suing the case. And the Court of Appeal in this case. Do not
need to judge the case in the Court of Appeal in the case before. Because of
the judgment The Court of Appeal in the previous case shall be dismissed by the
Supreme Court in the preceding case. The Court of Appeal therefore ruled
against the verdict in the case before the Court of Appeal.
Section 36. If the court has
ordered that the quasi-incompetent person be terminated. Section 31 shall apply
mutatis mutandis.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2102/2517.
Removal of the Guardian It is
not the case that heirs will inherit.
The plaintiff asked the court
to dismiss the defendant from the plaintiff's protector. When the plaintiff,
who was in charge of death during the petition. It is not useful for the
Supreme Court to consider the petition of the defendant. The Supreme Court has
ordered the distribution of the lawsuit.
