Section 37. The domicile of a
person The place where the person is located is a major source.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7608/2550.
According to the Civil Registration
Act 1991, Section 4, 33 requires the host to notify the relocation of a named
person in the house registration, who has been living elsewhere for more than 180
days, and the host does not know that the person is staying. any Later, the
registrar stated that it did not know the address. The Registrar shall notify
the Registrar of the name and the list of persons in the Central Household
Registration, which the Central House Registrar shall prepare for the entry of
persons who may not be named in the House Registration. Does not appear that
before the defendant has a name in the middle of the defendant's domicile is
domiciled. The employee sent a summons and a copy of the complaint to the
defendant by way of closing the number at home registration number 317, which
is Dusit district office. The residence of the defendant by the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 37 is not closing the plea at the domicile or office
of the defendant. To be dissatisfied with the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 79 paragraph one, the court proceedings since the submission of a
subpoena and a copy of the lawsuit unlawful. The issue of sending a letter and
a copy of the complaint to the defendant in a non-case does not comply with the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the aim to remain fair. To be
withdrawn under the Civil Code Section 27
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2983/2550.
The domicile of the person who has
been imprisoned by the final judgment of the court or by lawful order: prison
or correctional facility, imprisoned until released. The defendant must have a
judgment of the Court of First Instance and must be at the special minnow. When
the verdict of the Court of First Instance has not reached the end because the
plaintiff appealed. Prison Minburi is not the domicile of the defendant under
Section 47 not the defendant must be at the special prison. Minburi is not a
move of the defendant with the intention of appearing to change the domicile.
Section 41 and the case of the defendant does not require that any person
choose any place with the intention of clearly showing that it is a domicile
only to do any thing. It is the case that the Court of First Instance sent a
copy of the plaintiff's appeal to the defendant, whose place is a major source
under Section 37 of the copy of the plaintiff's appeal to the defendant, then
like it.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2516/2549.
Even 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 to the defendant by the closure of the defendant at
the 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 a resident
of the second defendant and also appears in the name of the house listed in the
complaint. Thus, it is not held that the defendant is not a habitual residence,
so the address of the defendant is the domicile of the defendant.
Section 37. Submitting a
summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant by the closure of the
defendant's domicile 1 so lawful.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3585/2548.
At the auction of the defendant's
property 3 each time, the third defendant is a stakeholder in the enforcement.
The duty of the official receiver, the auctioneer must notify the seller of the
third defendant informed that the defendant will have the opportunity to take
care of the sale of his interests. It appears that the defendant sold the third
time 9 times every time sent a notice to the defendant at home number 17/2 Pak
Pak Amphoe Mueang Saraburi Saraburi The address of the house registration of
the third defendant. After the house number 17/2 was then sold to the third
defendant to move the address even though the third defendant is required to
notify the transfer of address and address to the official receiver. according
Section 67 (3) of the Bankruptcy Act, if it violates criminal law. It does not
mean that the failure to comply with such provisions will make the defendant 3
still have the same residence forever. The domicile of the defendant 3 must be
in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code of domicile. When the
announcement of the auction of property when the defendant 3 moved to the third
place, and the third defendant was not announced. And it does not appear that
after the relocation of the house, then the third defendant held the house
number 17/2, which is the only domicile in any matter. So while the
announcement of the auction of property to the third defendant at 17/2, the
defendant has no domicile at home. It is closing the announcement of the
auction of property at a place that is not the domicile of the defendant, 3 is
not in favor of the Civil Code Section 79, together with the Bankruptcy Act,
Section 153 (former)
Section 38. If an individual
has multiple places of residence which are interchanged or where there are
several regular places of work. To take one of the domiciles of that person.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2680/2551.
The defendant is with the family at
No. 44/16, 62/2 is the office of the Democrat Party District 10, District
Pakpanang. The defendant has moved to apply for membership of the House of
Representatives from 1986 until now not moving to a new location. The defendant
is at number 62/2 on Saturday and Sunday, the party is the office of the
members of the House of Representatives of the party. There are regular
rotating officers. The defendant informed the address to the inquiry officer,
which is the convenient place to contact the following. House number 62/2 is
both a domicile and a normal location of the defendant. It can be said that
many defendants in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 38. The plaintiff has
a letter to the defendant sent the defendant to the plaintiff. Send to home
number 62/2, then sent by the defendant's domicile. When the recipient of the
letter is replaced. Defendant did not send the accused to the plaintiff as
scheduled. Defendant is breached.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
661/2550.
There are 2 residents of the temple
is the temple and the temple of protesters, according to the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 38 shall be regarded as one of the domicile of the
person. It must be considered a temple of the land of the monk added a monk.
The petitioner, as a public prosecutor, will have the right to request the estate
manager to the court. The court in which the inheritance is domiciled in the
court at the time of death in accordance with the Civil Code Section 4
quarters.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2734/2549.
The witness testified in the first
phrase. The house is located at 18 Moo 5, Sri Saeng district, the second
expression. The residence is located at 100 Moo 5 Tambon Sai Rai and from the
registration form that the petitioner is domiciled in the house number 100 Moo
5 Sa Pra that he heard that the singer is domiciled in the house number. Both
of them. When the Enforcement Officer announced the auction to the petitioner
at home, No. 5 Moo 5 Sairee is considered to have announced the auction to the
petitioner.
Section 39. If domicile is not
present The residence is domiciled.
Section 40. Individuals who do
not have a regular place of residence. Or as a living to travel without a job.
Find out where the place is considered a residence of the person.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6068/2538.
The plaintiff's attorney has moved
from his original domicile before the date of the appointment to read the
judgment of the Court of Appeal. So sending the appointment to hear the verdict
of the Court of Appeal to the plaintiff's attorney's place of residence of the
plaintiff's attorney by way of closing. It is not like that it can not be held
that the plaintiff has heard the appointment of the Court of Appeal. Court of
First Instance would like to have the order to read the verdict of the Court of
Appeal to the new plaintiff.
Section 41 of the domicile
shall be changed by immigration. With the intention of appearing to change the
domicile.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4655/2553.
The defendant moved his domicile
to another place on December 24, 1996 before the Court of First Instance
ordered the closure of the sign. It also appears that the main case of this
case to the utmost of the Court of Appeal, which read the verdict on November
22, 2538. There is no reason for the defendant to move the case in the main
case to the court. And can not be considered that the domicile in the main case
is the only domicile in this litigation of the defendant because the domicile
of the person will change with the relocation of the place, with the intent to
change the domicile according to the LC. Section 41
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2983/2550.
The domicile of the person who has
been imprisoned by the final judgment of the court or by lawful order: Prison
or correctional prison, until imprisonment. The defendant must have a judgment
of the Court of First Instance and must be at the special minnow. When the
verdict of the Court of First Instance has not reached the end because the
plaintiff appealed. Prison Minburi is not the domicile of the defendant under
Section 47 not the defendant must be at the special prison. Minburi is not a
move of the defendant with the intention of appearing to change the domicile.
Section 41 and the case of the defendant does not require that any person choose
any place with the intention of clearly showing that it is a domicile only to
do any thing. It is the case that the Court of First Instance sent a copy of
the plaintiff's appeal to the defendant, whose place is a major source under
Section 37 of the copy of the plaintiff's appeal to the defendant, then like
it.
Section 42 If any person
chooses to take any place The intention is clear that it will be the only
domicile to do. It is considered as a homeland for that purpose.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5845/2558.
The request of the petitioner stated
first. The singer is at home at 46/10 Sukhumvit 105 Soi Soi Lasalle 14
(Wongsawat 1), Bangna, Bangna, Bangkok. After the Court of First Instance
ordered the applicant to be a trustee. Many heirs send letters to the house.
The misappropriation of inheritance as the plaintiff sued as a trustee. The
home address confirmation number 46/10, together with the objections to the
respondent. Opponents know that the petitioner is at home. Such a circumstance.
The petitioner chooses to house No. 46/10 is the only residence for the
prosecution of the petitioner under Section 42 so that the employee walked off
the appointment and a copy of the petitioner's request to set a date. I have a
question for you. The objection does not send the appointment and the
petitioner's petition to the domicile of the petitioner. Appointment and copy
of petition do not like the Civil Code Section 74 (2), 77 and Section 79 can
not be considered that the petitioner is scheduled to interview. Where the case
does not comply with the provisions of the law, the purpose is to ensure
fairness in the submission of pleadings. And then the lawsuit is unlawful. I
prefer to order the revocation of the wrongful procedure is all under Section 27
of the Civil Code, and when the decision to revoke the wrongful determination
of the appointment and the copy of the petitioner's objection. The case must go
back to the process of reconsideration as required by law.
Section 43 Husbands and Wives
The resident husband and wife are eating together, husband and wife. Unless the
husband or wife has indicated their intention to appear separate from each
other.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5698/2541.
The two defendants have moved from
house number 252 to domicile. Live elsewhere That number is not the domicile of
the two defendants, without taking into account that the two defendants moved.
Stay elsewhere for any reason And also the names of the two defendants. The
only reason for not registering the name change. Going out alone will not make
those houses continue. The domicile of the two defendants. This is the sending
of a summons. And a copy of the plaintiff and testimony of the plaintiff to the
defendant at home number 252 is not like. And there is no way that the two
defendants will know that they have been sued by the plaintiff. Both defendants
did not file a statement of defense and did not go to court on the date of the
hearing. The defendant will either be deliberately absent from the appointment
or not deliberately missed the appointment can not be. When the case does not
appear before the two defendants will file a request for consideration. The new
law has been issued and regulations are issued. Both defendants to comply with
the judgment. So no start The deadline for submitting the request New case
under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 208, the two defendants have the right
to file a request. Reconsider The new defendant's two pleadings claim that the
defendants had a way to win the plaintiff's case. Because of the fact that both
defendants are buyers of land, as the plaintiff sued unilaterally. The
plaintiff was not involved. The two defendants did not represent the plaintiff.
The plaintiff and the defendant did not. I do not know what to say. And appears
by copy The contract is to sell the land at the end of the plaintiff's claim
that only. Both defendants are the sole purchaser. According to the plaintiff
sued. Unidentified plaintiff is a buyer, it can be considered that the two
defendants have clearly stated. The two defendants will win the plaintiff's
case, or in other words, equal. Both defendants objected. Judgment of the court
to the plaintiff. Win the case by the defendant by listening to the facts of
the plaintiff's complaint. It is not right. Request for a new trial The
defendants both like the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 208.
Section 44 of the domicile of
a minor The domicile of the legislator, who is the administrator or parent.
In cases where a minor is
under the parental authority If the parents are domiciled separately. The
domicile of a minor is the domicile of the father or mother of which he or she
lives.
Section 45, domicile of the
incompetent. The domicile of the kindergarten.
Section 46. The domicile of
the servant. The place where the duties. If it is not a temporary position for
a period of time or is appointed only once.
Section 47 of the domicile of
a person who has been imprisoned by the final judgment of the court or by
lawful order. Prison or correctional facility Until it is released.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1086/2552.
Plaintiff served as assistant director
of the Sukhothai Technical College. Acting as Director of Sri Samrong
Vocational College The position of the plaintiff is. Si Samrong Vocational
College Sri Samrong Vocational College is the domicile of the plaintiff. Which
is a civil servant under Section 46
The Director of the Vocational
Education Division has a letter to the plaintiff to clarify the facts, together
with Attach the request for fairness of the two defendants with the plaintiff's
defamation message to the plaintiff. The book was sent to Sri Samrong
Vocational College on February 23, 1999 with the staff involved as the
recipient of the letter to the plaintiff. And made a record of the plaintiff,
dated on the same day. The plaintiff did not attest that the plaintiff did not
receive the letter as proposed by the plaintiff. And no reason why I just
retired to send the letter on March 2, 2542, even if the plaintiff signed the
statement and ordered the process of clarifying the facts on March 2, 2542, it
is the only way to carry out the bureaucracy. The plaintiff received that
letter on February 23, 2542, and the plaintiff knew about the offense and knew
the offender on the same day. This case is an indictable offense. When the
plaintiff did not complain and filed the lawsuit within 3 months, the
plaintiff's case is terminated under Section 96
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7608/2550.
According to the Civil Registration
Act 1991, Section 4, 33 requires the host to notify the relocation of a named
person in the house registration, who has been living elsewhere for more than
180 days, and the host does not know that the person is staying. any Later, the
registrar stated that it did not know the address. The Registrar shall notify the
Registrar of the name and the list of persons in the Central Household
Registration, which the Central Registrar shall make for the list of persons
who may not be named in the House Registration. Does not appear that before the
defendant has a name in the middle of the defendant's domicile is domiciled.
The employee sent a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant by way
of closing the number at home registration number 317, which is Dusit district
office. The residence of the defendant by the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 37 is not closing the plea at the domicile or office of the defendant.
To be dissatisfied with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 79, paragraph
one, the Central Labor Court's consideration of the submission of a subpoena
and a copy of the lawsuit unlawful. The issue of sending a copy and a copy of
the complaint to the defendant is not in the case does not comply with the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the aim to remain fair. To
withdraw from the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 27. Establish a labor
court and labor trial procedure, Section 2522. Section 31.
The officer sent a copy of the
plaintiff's appeal to the defendant at the domicile of the defendant sued. Then
the officer reports the result. I can not send because I can not find a home.
Search nearby And ask the residents of the area. No one found the number of the
defendant's domicile. However, it appears in fact in the expression of the
report submitted to the defendant in previous times that the officer had
brought the suspect to file a lawsuit to the defendant sent two times and sent
a criminal complaint to the defendant once again by means of closing the sign.
The same homeland. And in the investigation, the defendant has appointed a lawyer.
The officer sent a copy of the appeal to the defendant in this report and
reported that no home. It may be because the search is not thorough. It can not
be considered that the delivery of the appeal to the defendant is not because
the defendant can not find. The defendant escaped or the defendant deliberately
did not receive a copy of the appeal. The Court of First Instance must
immediately forward the phrase to the Court of Appeal 1 for further
consideration. As stated in Section 201, but it is not the case to send a copy
of the appeal to the defendant as provided in Section 200. Therefore, the Court
of First Instance sent the expression to the Court of Appeal 1 by. Do not send
a copy of the appeal to the defendant. Will the defendant lose the legal right
to make appeals. And at the Court of Appeal 1 Judge without a copy of the
appeal to the defendant. Section 200 of the Act on the establishment of
district court and the procedure of criminal cases in the district court, 2499
Section 4 must reverse the case to the Court of First Instance to submit a copy
of the appeal to the defendant. Then submit the expression to the Court of
Appeal. 1 Judge the new case.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
661/2550.
There are 2 residents of the temple
is the temple and the temple of protesters, according to the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 38 shall be regarded as one of the domicile of the
person. It must be considered a temple of the land of the monk added a monk.
The petitioner, as a public prosecutor, will have the right to request the
estate manager to the court. The court in which the inheritance is domiciled in
the court at the time of death in accordance with the Civil Code Section 4
quarters.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5944/2549.
The court ruled that. The case is not
in the jurisdiction of the court, then it will be dismissed. No need to
diagnose other issues because there is no judicial power under the Judgment of
the Court of Justice, Section 19, paragraph one.
When considering a credit card
membership application stating that The billing address is the defendant's
workplace located in Bangrak. Bangkok And in the Court of First Instance
indicates that the defendant chose the work of the defendant, with the intent
to disclose that it is a domicile only for that under Section 42 of the
plaintiff has the power to file a defendant with the defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2734/2549.
The witness testified in the first
phrase. The house is located at 18 Moo 5, Sri Saeng district, the second
expression. The residence is located at 100 Moo 5 Tambon Sai Rai and from the
registration form that the petitioner is domiciled in the house number 100 Moo
5 Sa Pra that he heard that the singer is domiciled in the house number. Both
of them. When the Enforcement Officer announced the auction to the petitioner
at home, No. 5 Moo 5 Sairee is considered to have announced the auction to the
petitioner.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2516/2549.
Even 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 to the defendant by the closure of the defendant at
the 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. So it can not be considered that the
defendant is not a habitual residence, so the address of the indictment is the
domicile of the defendant under Section 37 of the Civil and Commercial Code and
the copy of the complaint to the defendant by the first. Closure of the defendant's
domicile is so lawful.
The newly appointed property
manager of the defendant, who was not under the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 48, paragraph two, on May 14, 2001. So, while the Bank filed a petition
to file a defendant on behalf of the defendant. On August 4, 2000, the Bank did
not have the power to act on behalf of the defendant. This is the law of public
order. The Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Code Section 142 (5) in
conjunction with Section 246 and 247 by the Supreme Court to revoke the order
to receive the petition, as well as the process of consideration and order of
the Court of First Instance on the request for a license. Defendant 1 of the
bankrupt and have not received the request.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1965/2549.
Central Prison of Nakhon Si Thammarat is
the domicile of the defendant, while the plaintiff filed this case under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 47 would have held that the defendant has
jurisdiction in accordance with Section 22 (1). It does not force the Court of
First Instance to have a defendant in the jurisdiction to pay the case that the
plaintiff sued. Section 22 (1) does not require the local court of the
defendant to raise the matter of the inconvenience of the court to settle the case.
Why not get the lawsuit or not to settle the case. But the discretion to accept
the case or not, it should consider the convenience of the trial.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7454/2548.
The plaintiff sent a letter
requesting the defendant to pay a debt of 2 times to the domicile of the
defendant. The first one was notified that the defendant moved the address
unknown. And once the trouble has been identified, there is no home number.
Both in the class sent a subpoena and a copy of the complaint to the defendant
at the number 1 listed in the report of the staff walk is characterized as a
deserted home. No longer living for a long time. The action of the defendant to
close the business establishment to delay payment or not to repay the creditor.
Section 8 (4) (b) that the defendant has insolvent liabilities.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3906/2548.
Section 8 of the Taxation Act
provides for the notification of taxation by registered mail at the domicile or
residence. Or the office of that person. Defendant's office sent the assessment
notice to the plaintiff by way of mail by registered mail at the address of the
envelope, which is the plaintiff's office. Acting under the provisions of
Section 8, but the Postal Officer brought the tax notice to the head office of
the head of the bridge, which Joe's managing partner had worked as mayor. Do
not match the envelope address. Can be sent to notify taxpayer does not
correspond to the domicile. Or residence However, Section 8 of the Revenue Code
is intended to prevent the damage caused by the exploitation of the tax notice
and to reach the recipient correctly. Upon receipt of the letter sent to the
plaintiff to send the tax to the plaintiff at the head office of the bridge.
Officers of the municipal office sign their names. And sent to the plaintiff's
managing partner until the appellate assessment within the legal deadline. The
plaintiff has been aware of the message in the tax notice and appealed the
assessment to the Appeals Board. Even if the tax notice is not sent to the
place specified in Section 8 tax revenue, the plaintiff was damaged because of
this. The notification of such tax is legal.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
516/2548.
Although some central prison is the
domicile of the two defendants while the plaintiff filed this case under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 47 held that the two defendants are located
in the jurisdiction of Nonthaburi province under the Criminal Procedure Code,
Section 22 ( 1) But the law does not enforce the Nonthaburi Provincial Court
where the defendant is in the jurisdiction to receive a lawsuit that the
plaintiff sued. Therefore, when this case occurs in the area within the
jurisdiction of Phuket Province and the investigator of the Phuket Town Police
Station is investigating the case. Not if the settlement of the case at the
Nonthaburi Provincial Court is more convenient than the settlement of the case
at the Phuket Provincial Court. The plaintiffs claim that the move of the two
defendants to the Phuket Provincial Court is not safe to control and may be
damaged during the move. It is only a practical issue of the Department of
Corrections that may be prevented and resolved. In case of non-cause, the
Nonthaburi Provincial Court shall receive the case.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1702/2547.
When the Enforcement Officer of the
debtor's debt. Enforcement Officer is obliged to continue. Accounting for the
receipt and payment of Civil and Commercial Code, Section 316, and the payment
to the creditors under the judgment under Section 318, if the remaining net
money must pay the rest to the debtor according to the judgment in accordance
with the judgment. Section 322, paragraph two and the obligation to pay the
remaining debt to the debtor in accordance with this judgment. Enforcement
Officer must notify the account pay-out and notify the debtor to receive a
refund. If you do not finish the task. The remaining money is still not paid to
the Enforcement Officer to claim the right to claim within 5 years and still
not be the land of the Civil Code Section 323. When it appears that the
Enforcement Officer asked the court to send the. Inform Debtors under the
judgment to receive money by way of closing the place of domicile of the debtor
under the judgment on October 24, 1992 and May 16, 1993, but then the debtor
according to the judgment has gone from his domicile or residence. No one knows
whether they are alive or not. Later, the court ordered the debtors under the
verdict to be disappeared and ordered the applicant to be the debtor's estate
manager under the judgment. And it appears that the claimant has the remaining
money that the debtor is entitled to recover. In October 1999, the petitioner
as the trustee of the debtors, according to the judgment, requested to receive
such money on June 30, 2000, so it has not passed a five-year period, it is
eligible for this money. This amount is not vested in the land of Civil Code
Section 323
