Section 15. Personality begins
at birth, but at the time of birth, survives as a baby and ends upon death.
The fetus can have different
rights if she survives after birth.
Section 16. Start from the
date of birth. In case you know of any birth month, but do not know the birth
date. Count one day of the month as a birthday. But if it is impossible to
perceive the month and the birthday of any person. The age of the person shall
be counted from the beginning of the calendar year. This is the year that the
person was born.
Section 17 In the case of
multiple deaths in the event of mutual harm, if it is impossible to determine
who died before. To be considered dead together.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1245/2559.
Proceeding No. 1 (original) does not
provide for counting the person's method. It must be counted in accordance with
the provisions of Section 158 (original) is not counting the first date of
birth is included. The Cabinet also resolved on September 13, 1966 to determine
the method of counting the age of the person in accordance with the Civil and
Commercial Code, and then the defendant to comply with the provisions of the
Act. The revised version of the Civil and Commercial Code, BE 2535, Section 3,
the amendment to the Civil and Commercial Code 1 and 3 (3). This is the first
of the Civil and Commercial Rehabilitation. Effective June 8, 1992, Section 16
(new) prescribes the method of counting the age of a person specifically. The
counting of the age of the person to commence from the date of birth is to be
counted as one full day of birth. The Cabinet resolution, as per the letter of
the Cabinet Secretariat, No. 0025/42, dated 13 March 1995, canceled the cabinet
resolution on 13 September. 2509, then the age of the person under Section 16
(new), which is currently in force, is to count the age of the person since
birth.
Section 16 (new) provides for the
aging of a person in particular, and therefore shall apply under Section 16
(new). The change in the count of the age of a person shall be governed by the
law as amended. The above is used in the diagnosis, interpretation of the
qualifications and the loss of the position of the defendant by the age of the
person who changed the effect of the law. Even with the effect on the
termination of employment and leaving the job, it is not possible to change the
employment conditions. Act of State Labor Relations Federation 2000
The plaintiff was born on October 1,
1950, the age of the plaintiff since the date of October 1, 1950 is a full day,
the plaintiff is 60 years old on September 30, 2010 under Section 193/5 (new.
), Which resulted in the plaintiff's dismissal and dismissal on October 1,
2010, pursuant to the Qualifications Act for State Enterprises Directors and
Employees, Section 25 (3), 11 and 11. Agricultural Bank Regulation and United
No. 4, Clause 19, as amended, effective from September 1, 2010, if it is not
unfair dismissal.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
13129/2056.
The children of A. and A. died together are
not the heirs to inherit each other. Because while a person is dead, another
person is not qualified to be entitled to the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 15 and Section 1604, paragraph one and not in accordance with Section
1639, because the heirs do not. To die before the inheritance will make the
plaintiff, which is the son of the Bank of Thailand is entitled to inherit the
plaintiff instead of the plaintiff has no power to sue the property of a
problem of power to sue legal issues. The peace of the people The Supreme Court
has the power to raise a judgment under Civil Code Section 142 (5), in
conjunction with Section 246 and Section 247
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7841/2552.
Section 16 stipulates that the age
of a person from the date of birth. The 1st victim was born on March 5, 1989.
The date of birth is from March 5, 1989 to the full date. The victim was 15
years old on March 4, 2004 under the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 193/5. The incident happened on March 5, 2004, at around 2am. So, when
the victim was over, he was over 15 years old. The case does not constitute an
offense under Section 277 and Section 317.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7841/2552.
Section 16, the Civil Code
stipulates that the age of a person shall be counted from the date of birth.
The 1st victim was born on March 5, 1989, so it must be counted from the date
of birth. It is from March 5, 1989 to a full day. The victim was 15 years old
on March 4, 2004 under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/5. The case
was born on March 5, 2004 at about 2 o'clock. More than 15 years old. The
actions of the defendants 1 and 2 lack the element of crime under Section 227.
Defendants 1 and 2 are not guilty of this provision, and despite the provisions
of the offense under Section 276, when the victim. 1 Consent of the defendants
1 and 2 is not guilty under Section 276 as well. The action of the defendants 1
and 2 is not an offense under Section 317, but it is a crime. Prakผogeiaws
age of fifteen years but not more than eight years away from his parents.
Parents or caretakers for obscenity by the minor are willing to go along with
Section 319
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5689/2552.
The death of the marriage between
the defendant and the death of the death of the property of the inheritance of
A. will be handed to the heirs immediately. The result of the law of the Civil
and Commercial Code, Section 1501, Section 1599 and 1629 land on the day of the
Sin Somros will become a legacy. The land used to be Sin Somros is the only one
that led to the diagnosis of the division of land as a Sin Somros to manage the
inheritance of only A. Land transactions between the defendants 1 and 2 just
happened later. From the death of about 5 years, the end of the person under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 15, paragraph one, so it is not a matter
of management of the Sin Somros wife. Whether or not the mutual consent of the
other party. Otherwise, the spouse who has not given consent to revoke the
juristic act relating to the management of the Sin Somros is under the Civil
and Commercial Code, Section 1476 and 1480, neither can the lawsuit against the
revocation of the land transaction law between the defendant. 1 and 2 because
of the death of the person due to death. The case is a matter of how the
management of the property to the right of half of the plaintiff's inheritance
is not entitled to sue the second defendant requested to revoke the juristic
act to split the land in half to the plaintiff. The right to sue for the
revocation of the law, the defendant sold 1 half of the estate of the defendant
to the second.
Section 16. Start from the
date of birth. In case you know of any birth month, but do not know the birth
date. Count one day of the month as a birthday. But if it is impossible to
perceive the month and the birthday of any person. The age of the person shall
be counted from the beginning of the calendar year. This is the year that the
person was born.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
623/2519.
The plaintiff sued the case that
the birth of 2495 did not specify the date of birth must be considered under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 16 that January 1, 1952, the date of
birth is not yet 20 years of age, so the right to call the lack of parenting.
Because the defendant violated the plaintiff's mother died. Even though a
father is a parent, he still has to support his mother. The lack of a
representative is a defect in the ability to be resolved according to the Code
of Civil Procedure, Section 56 is not the power to sue, but in the class of the
plaintiff's suicide. Do not fix it.
A major conference is the
mandate of the President of the Supreme Court to order or not. I can not sing.
Section 17 In the case of
multiple deaths in common cause If it is impossible to determine who died
before. To be considered dead together.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
13129/2056.
The children of A. and A. died
together are not the heirs to inherit each other. Because while a person is
dead, another person is not qualified to be entitled to the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 15 and Section 1604, paragraph one and not in
accordance with Section 1639, because the heirs do not. To die before the
inheritance will make the plaintiff, which is the son of the Bank of Thailand
is entitled to inherit the plaintiff instead of the plaintiff has no power to
sue the property of a problem of power to sue legal issues. The peace of the
people The Supreme Court has the power to raise a judgment under Civil Code
Section 142 (5), in conjunction with Section 246 and Section 247
Judgment of the Supreme Court
358/2554.
The inheritance as well as the
family was the husband of the inheritance, firearms shot to death in successive
time. It is a death in the common danger and it is impossible to determine who
died before. It is considered that all died together in accordance with Section
17 of the inheritance of the inheritance will not fall to the children of the
inheritance, which is considered dead together. But it will fall to the
objection, which is the water of the inheritance. And when the facts are clear.
The husband of the inheritance is a person who intentionally made the
inheritance of death unlawful and can not prosecute the husband of the
inheritance because the husband of inheritance suicide before. It is considered
that the husband of the inheritance is a person who must be limited to the
inheritance of the inheritance is not appropriate. A brother-in-law, the father
of the mother, is not the heir of the inheritance. And when the petitioner is
not a stakeholder in the inheritance of the inheritance. Therefore, there is no
right to apply for inheritance of the inheritance.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9750/2544.
The insured and the beneficiary
died simultaneously. The beneficiary's rights under the insurance policy is not
yet born. It is not an inheritance to the heirs of the beneficiary. Life
insurance is not a legacy. The insured has died. But not even the inheritance
of the insured because it came after the insured. To death The law is close to
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, paragraph two, so that the heirs. The
moral of the insured as a legacy.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9750/2544.
The insured and the beneficiary died
simultaneously. The beneficiary's rights under the insurance policy is not yet
born. It is not an inheritance to the heirs of the beneficiary. Life insurance
is not a legacy. The insured has died. But not even the inheritance of the
insured because it came after the insured. To death The law is close to the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, paragraph two, so that the heirs. The
moral of the insured as a legacy.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7841/2552.
Section 16 stipulates that the age of a
person from the date of birth. The 1st victim was born on March 5, 1989. The
date of birth is from March 5, 1989 to the full date. The victim was 15 years
old on March 4, 2004 under the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 193/5. The incident happened on March 5, 2004, at around 2am. So, when
the victim was over, he was over 15 years old. The case does not constitute an
offense under Section 277 and Section 317.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2349/2547.
The plaintiff sued the
defendant to both. The lawsuit against the use of checks. This is a tolerable
offense. The plaintiff was custody of the defendant decisively and sentenced to
bankruptcy. Although the plaintiff is considered a person who has the law that.
In the criminal case, when the plaintiff's death or death. The criminal case
has been suspended, but the criminal case broke out and the right to bring a
criminal case to suspend under Section 37 and Section 39 with the criminal
case. This is a criminal case waiting to be read. Judgment of the Court of
Appeal Judgment of the Court of First Instance is still in force will be the
Civil Code Section 132 (3) shall not apply. When the plaintiff did not withdraw
the complaint, withdraw or sue or cause the right to bring a criminal
prosecution. And the two defendants. Did not bring money according to the check
amount paid within thirty days after receiving the letter from the bank that
does not use the check or the amount of the check issued binding before the
court has the final judgment. Both defendants will ask the court to find out.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9750/2544.
The insured and the
beneficiary died simultaneously. The beneficiary's right under the policy. It
does not happen. It is not an inheritance to the heirs of the beneficiary. Life
insurance is not a legacy. The insured has died. But not even the inheritance
of the insured because it came after the insured. To death The law is close to
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, paragraph two, so that the heirs. The
moral of the insured as a legacy.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3432/2536.
A request for a filing of a
petition under section 6 of the Act. The plaintiff has a personal insanity. The
plaintiff's claim that the petitioner is insane and that there is no
preschooler has died during the inquiry, the petitioner is the plaintiff's
case, the plaintiff's case is terminated before the court to order the
petitioner to be. Court case The applicant is required to set up a petitioner
for the plaintiff's plaintiff can not. Even if the plaintiff is dead, the
applicant as a plaintiff's plaintiff's filing of the plaintiff filed the first
plaintiff's behalf. But while the plaintiff died. The court has not appointed a
petitioner instead of only the plaintiff's case will be considered a case where
the plaintiff filed a lawsuit and died under the Criminal Procedure Code
Section 29 does not.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3458/2533.
The couple will be in the
case. Must be a person prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1
(11), and that person under the Civil and Commercial Code. The White Paper
Office is the only office that has a management team. It is not a legal person
can not be a legal partner can not be a partner in the case. The plaintiff has
no power to sue. The defendant informed the income tax on behalf of the
plaintiff. Or the Appeals Board considered the appeal on appeal on behalf of
the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not a person.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4162/2532.
The defendants did not request
a trade association within the time limit set by the Trade Association Act.
Section 54 did not name the defendant as an association in the register. The
drug dealer. Bangkok, which is in the dispute, the plaintiff sued the defendant
has filed a petition to establish a new trade association, although the name
will have the same meaning as the name of the defendant. But it's a different
name for different voices. It is a different person. When the defendant does
not have a legal status while being sued. The defendant can not be sued and
will not file a defense.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3252/2524.
Taxpayer dead The inheritance
of the deceased, including property, rights, duties and liabilities, is vested
in the heirs under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1599, 1600 heirs are
legally obliged to pay tax.
Section 19 and Section 20 of
the Revenue Code, which provides for the notification of the amount of tax
assessed further, does not provide that in the case where the person liable to
tax has died How do the assessment staff practice? However, the assessment
officer will notify the taxpayer who has died and can not find. The dead person
can not be notified. Notification is not effective. Even later, the district
leader will have a letter to the defendant, a heir. The district head is not an
assessment officer. Therefore, it is not possible to declare the amount of tax
assessed further when the assessment officer has not completed the procedures
provided in the Revenue Code. Revenue Department Plaintiff I have no power to
sue.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
623/2519.
The plaintiff sued the case
that the birth of 2495 did not specify the date of birth shall be held under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 16 that occurred on January 1, 1952,
since the day of the accident has not reached the age of 20 years, so the right
to call for the lack of parenting. Because the defendant violated the
plaintiff's mother died, even with a father who is a parental authority, he
still has to support his mother. There is no such thing as a defect. The Civil
Procedure Code Section 56 does not have the power to sue but in the
petitioner's case. Do not fix it.
