Section 48. If any person is
absent from his domicile or residence without appointing a representative of a
general power of attorney. And no one knows for sure whether the person is alive
or not. When a stakeholder or prosecutor requests. The court will order one of
these actions as necessary to manage the property of the non-resident.
The time has elapsed for one
year from the date the person was absent from his domicile or residence. And no
one gets any news about him at all. Or one year since the day when someone has
seen or heard the news for the last time. When the person under paragraph one
requests The court will set up the property manager of the deceased.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2739/2056.
According to Section 1713,
"heirs, or stakeholders or prosecutors will ask the court to set up a
manager. In the case of the following: (1) When the inheritance dies ...
"means that at the time of filing the petition for the establishment of
the estate manager must appear that the inheritance is dead. The fact is that
the request and the inquiry. When filing a petition to the court, the estate of
the court has not yet ordered that the defendant is not a death so that the death
of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 61 and 62, the petitioner has no
power to file. A request for the court to set up the inheritance of B. came
along with the court asked the court to be a person.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5513/2552.
Was ordered by the court to be disappeared.
The dead and the dead are members of the defendant. I have the right to receive
money for funeral care and family support. The plaintiff is a beneficiary of
the benefits. The plea of the defendant. If there is no body to be handled,
then the defendant can not pay the funeral expenses can not hear it, so the
disagreement by the court order caused the defendant to pay the funeral.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7353/2550.
The claimant Defendant from his
domicile or residence. It does not set up a representative of a general power
of attorney, and no one knows for sure. Is the defendant alive? If the facts
can be heard by the petition. It is preferable that the court will order the
petitioner to do any one as necessary to manage the property of the defendant
as provided in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 48, paragraph one in this
case. The Court of First Instance prefers to examine the petitioner's petition.
The facts are clear. The Court of First Instance expressly orders the
petitioner's petition without first inquiring into the petition. This is the
case where the Court of First Instance did not comply with the provisions of
the Civil Procedure Code. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Court of
First Instance. Then the Court of First Instance considers the claim of the
petitioner and has a new order.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2516/2549.
Although the defendant will leave the
home by no one know the news, but while the court officer brought a subpoena
and a copy of the complaint sent to the defendant by the closure of the
defendant's domicile of the first defendant. The court did not have a statement
that the defendant is a non-existent and property manager of the non-existent. Or
a statement that the defendant is a disappeared, but the defendant is the first
one living with the defendant and a second name appears in the house
registration as in the complaint. It is not held that the defendant is not a
regular resident. The address of the defendant is the domicile of the first
defendant under Section 37 of the subpoena and a copy of the lawsuit to the
defendant that the law.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5770/2548.
After leaving the house with a pickup
truck, the company found a pickup truck parked at the exit of the Union of
Burma. Finding a car that is used to travel. It is not a vehicle that was lost.
To be eligible for a two-year period to be asked to be a disappeared under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 61, paragraph two, but it is necessary to
use the five-year rule under Section 61 paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1367/2544.
The disappearance of the
testimony of the document of the town raised the land disputes to the mosque
Khanna Yao once registered as a legitimate foundation. The intention is to cut
off their own descendants, not to inherit the land disputes. According to the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1608, paragraph two, when the mosque Khanna
Yao was registered as a defendant mosque as a juristic person in the same way
as the foundation as shown in the will. This is the purpose of the testator.
Land dispute is the defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
943/2538.
In the case of this case, the
Civil and Commercial Code No. 1, which was re-examined in 1992, does not apply
to count the period of time a person has left his domicile or residence and
falls to the base. Dangerous life for a person who is a missing person, so it
must count up to three years from the time the danger has passed, according to
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 64, paragraph two, even if the
petitioner is requested. . Disappeared when the Civil and Commercial Code 1,
which was re-examined in 1992, and the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 61,
paragraph two, which has been re-examined, reduced to two years from the date
of danger. For the purposes of the Act, the provisions of Part 1 of the Civil
and Commercial Code, re-examined in Section 14, shall apply. Las longer
applicable;
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1112/2535.
The request to the court
ordered that. It is a disagreement that the petitioner is the person who
inherits the property. If the court ordered the A lawyer must be considered
dead by 7 years from the place of residence. I did not go over the year 1933,
because I went from my homeland in 1926, but my father died in 1935, so I will
have the inheritance. As an uncle as claimed by the claimant. I do not have the
right to inherit. I'm still alive. The petitioner is not interested in
submitting a petition to the court ordering the petitioner to file a petition.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3780/2533.
The three plaintiffs sued all
the land dispute, claiming that the three plaintiffs are the owners of the land
together with peacefully disclosed with the intention of ownership to date more
than a year ago, the court heard the fact that plaintiff 1 The second and the
father of the defendant, the first 2, the possession of the dispute together,
even later, the master left the house and then disappear, it can not hold that
the omission of possession of the dispute. It must be assumed that the
plaintiffs 1 and 2 m are involved in the dispute as well. The court will judge
the plaintiff's first 2 owners dispute their own.
The fourth defendant, who is
the head of the Land Readjustment Office. The three plaintiffs filed a new deed
of deed for the plaintiff because the three defendants objected to the issuance
of the title deed, claiming that he was the co-owner of the dispute. When there
are arguments and agree not to defend the fourth defendant to the court before.
When the court has a judgment on how to follow it. It's like acting like a
power. Find out the dispute of the plaintiff in any way. The plaintiff has no
power to sue the defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3741/2533.
The plaintiff is to report the
birth of the plaintiff, stating that he is the father. Accept the plaintiff as
a child in the household registration. During the war, the plaintiff and his
wife migrated to the family. The circumstance indicates that the plaintiff is a
certified child. The inheritance of the plaintiff is a private property of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the property. It is the management of personal
property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the power to manage itself without
the consent of the husband. Those who are able to raise the age of one year can
fight only the heirs who have the inheritance. When it appears that the
defendant is only a younger brother. I have no right to inherit because there
is a plaintiff, a son and a successor to the superior. The defendant will raise
the age of inheritance to the plaintiff, the heirs have the right to inherit.
The defendant sued the estate. From the manager of the inheritance because of
the good faith that the plaintiff has lost the defendant has the right to call
for the costs of the defendant must be removed as necessary to manage the
estate. This is considered a good expense for maintaining the property.
Including the cost of funeral processors with the costs and benefits of the
defendant. Defendant has the right to be deducted.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
431/2521.
According to the plaintiff's
complaint, the court forced the defendant to deliver all of the property to the
plaintiff's claim that the property is the original property of the plaintiff's
inheritance as the property manager of the lost monk in court order. To be
distributed to the heirs of the monk, even if the plaintiff claimed to be the
son of the monk as his heir, and the property of his legacy is inherited, but
the plaintiff did not clearly show in the complaint. The plaintiff asked to
divide the inheritance of the plaintiff as the plaintiff's heirs. Therefore,
the court will not adjudicate the division of the property of the inheritance
case. Exceeded the request In accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 142, first paragraph, and in the absence of the exception under (2),
because the plaintiff does not file for inheritance. The court may judge the
plaintiff to receive only some.
(Cited above). 1360/2517
Conference)
