Section 4 that the law
requires in cases where required by any provision of law, according to the
text. Or the purpose of such provisions.
When there is no law that will
fine the case was brought forward. Case may be decided by the local tradition.
If there is no such tradition. Compared to judge the case based on similar
legislation very And if such laws were not with Be decided according to general
principles of law.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6893/2559.
The plaintiff is a trustee of the
contract with the defendant to the contract with the defendant to identify the
beneficiary is a contract for the benefit of outsiders. The fact is that if MPs
and Thaksin are dead, whether they die before or after death, they will not be
able to benefit from the death. Therefore, it can not be considered that the
benefits will be paid under the terms of the policy and not considered the money
that the defendant must pay to. As a beneficiary of the property, the
beneficiary can not take advantage of the life insurance contract, so the
benefits of the life insurance contract must fall to the heirs of the insured
as a legacy of property as a manager. The inheritance of the MP or the heirs
will have the right to claim money under the terms of life insurance. Coast.
The plaintiff is a trustee of the North. We have no right to sue the defendant
to pay under the policy of insurance. Have.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6788/2559.
The Court of Appeal sentenced the
defendant to a fine that means that the defendant, the defendant will have to
pay a fine to pay the defendant if the defendant does not pay a fine, then the
defendant must be seized property. Use of fines or otherwise be imprisonment
instead of fines under Section 29 paragraph one of the original, which is the
law applicable while the defendant filed a petition for detention, fines, or
imprisonment instead of the fine. It is a way to do so as a penalty for fines,
which is only enforceable by judgment. When the defendant did not bring a fine
to pay by the Court of Appeal, even though the defendant was required to be
detained instead of fines, and finally the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant,
there was no reason to pay a fine that the defendant must be detained.
Reimbursement to the defendant in the case may not be the case of the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 4 applies to this case, which is a criminal case.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4623/2559.
The insurance contract with the
defendant with the defendant. The bank is a beneficiary of death. A. The
intention of claiming the benefit of the insurance contract. Bank A. Therefore,
there is no right. When the rights of beneficiaries have not come under the
law, the insured as a contractual partner shall be entitled to receive
compensation under conditions. But when MPs are dead. Damages are not property
inheritance that existed at the time of death. I have been dead since then. The
law is very close to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, paragraph two,
so it falls to the heirs of the MPs as a legacy. The plaintiff is the mother of
MPs are the heirs of the right to inherit the MPs have the right to sue the
defendant claims for compensation under the accident insurance policy. The
plaintiff sued.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4301/2559
Regulation of condominium juristic
person. Any case not covered under this regulation. The provisions of The
Condominium Act 1979 and Condominium Act (No.2), 1991, including condominium
law that will be amended in the future. The provisions of the Civil and
Commercial Code and other relevant laws come into force when the Condominium
Act does not have the provision to request the revocation of the resolution of
the extraordinary general meeting of the co-owners, so the case must be judged.
By comparison of the law is very close to the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 4, which is the case, Section 1176 and Section 1195 when the facts are
heard, terminated by the Court of First Instance. Proxy for Prohibited Persons
to Propose Proxy for Shareholder to Attend the Meeting and Vote In Disapproval
The Condominium Act, BE 2522 (1979), Section 47, Paragraph 2 (as amended), is
the case where the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders is a meeting
where a non-co-owner participates in a meeting and casts a vote in breach.
Section 1176 of the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders and the
resolution of such meeting is not lawful. The resolution of the Extraordinary
General Meeting will lose all. Yes, there are only counts. The vote of A. is a
quorum and the votes are used to vote no.
The plaintiff filed a petition
to revoke the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders
within one month from the date of the resolution of the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 4, Section 1195, when the Court of First Instance ordered the
filing to be filed instead of the original. Counting time according to the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, Section 1195 must count to the date of
filing the original application. It is not the date of the filing of the new
filing. The plaintiff's indictment is in legal time.
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 the land and
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
811/2558.
If the injured party files a petition
to the defendant, Section 44/1 paragraph two is a substantive provision that
indicates that such civil procedure must be in accordance with the provisions
of the Civil Procedure Code. Similarly, a civil case related to a general
criminal case as provided in Section 40. Thus, in civil cases. The court is
required to have a verdict on liability in the highest court of civil court
under Section 161, Section 167, because, despite the provisions of Section 253
of Article 253, a request under Section 44/1 prohibits The fee, but the Civil
and Commercial Code Section 158 states that "if the court considers that
the other party must be liable for all the fees. But some of the couple. To the
court of justice. By ordering the other party to pay the court on behalf of
those who are exempted from the fees, the fees for which he or she is exempted,
in whole or in part, as the court deems appropriate. " "According to
Civil Code Section 158 is a continuation of the provisions of the exemption of
fees for filing or fighting cases under Section 156, Section 156/1 and Section
157 However, it must apply to the case where the victim exercised his right
under Section 44/1 of Article 44/1 to file a petition for the defendant to pay
compensation for his own, which is a civil case, which Section 44/1 paragraph
two stipulates that the petition. An indictment of the Civil and Commercial
Code as well as the victim as a plaintiff in the civil case. As a law is very
close to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, paragraph two.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6407/2554.
Even under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1979, Section 39, paragraph two, only provides for the
exclusion of all fees for consumer protection officers in court proceedings.
However, there is no provision for the court to order the other party to pay
the court fees that are exempted from court fees on behalf of those who are
exempted from court fees, as in the case of exemption. Court fees are allowed
for prosecution. As stated in the Civil Code Section 158 (former), but it is
required to apply the provisions of Civil Code Section 158 (former) shall apply
to the case of exemption from fees for officials to protect consumers. The
lawsuit in the case of the law is very close to the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 4, paragraph two, so even if the law to exempt all fees to the consumer
protection officer or plaintiff. according But such virtue as it should not be
useful to fall into business operators, who are the other party to sue or fight
in dishonesty. For this reason, if in the case of the Court of Appeal 1, the
defendant that the two business operators, who are parties to the case is the
first to be liable for the plaintiff instead of the plaintiff. The Court of
Appeal 1 has the power to order the defendant to pay the other. In addition to
attorney fees to the court on behalf of the plaintiff, the prosecutor instead
of the consumer who is exempted from the fees.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
796/2552.
The defendant built the house straddling
the disputed land and on the land of the defendant, another adjacent plot by
the defendant owned two plots of land. The defendant has the right to build as
a proprietor. The case is not a housing encroachment into the land of others in
good faith, according to Section 1312. Later, when the land dispute was
enforced, brought to auction. The plaintiff is the buyer of the disputed land
at the auction. Whether the plaintiff knows or knows that there are houses and
buildings in the land disputes. The land dispute is the defendant, which is the
debtors under the judgment. Therefore, the plaintiff bought the land dispute in
good faith. The plaintiff's claim that the land dispute from the auction will
not lose the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1330, the plaintiff has the
ownership of the land disputes. And after the plaintiff's ownership of the land
disputes come from the auction. The facts do not appear. The plaintiff has
caused the right to the ground as a defendant. By allowing the defendant to be the
landlord on the plaintiff's property. And the plaintiff as the ownership of the
land dispute is a land of land and They have the right to sell their property
and have the right to follow up on their property from the unauthorized person.
Hold and have the right to prevent others from entering into the property that
is wrong in accordance with Section 1335, 1336 when the plaintiff has no
ownership of the land to the defendant to plant and plant. Built on the
plaintiff's land and announced to the defendant to dismantle the land. Dispute,
then the defendant ignored. It is a violation of the plaintiff can not use the
land dispute. The plaintiff as the owner of the right to enforce the defendant
to demolish the house. The building of the plaintiff's land dispute is not a
right to dishonesty. And the case is not without the law to raise a fine for a
lawsuit that would require a very close law to come to the case under Article 4
of the Civil and Commercial Code.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
15198/2551.
The petitioner has co-founded the company,
which is the major shareholder of the company. The opposition petitioner who is
the manager of the condominium company did not take any action against the
company, which owed a large amount of central expenses. It is important to take
into consideration the impact on your relatives and yourself in the company. An
act that is against the interests of the juristic person of the Milford
Paradise Condo Condotel can be considered that the interests of the legal entity
contrary to the interests of the representatives of. The entity in question
When there is no law to raise the case. It does not appear that there is a
local custom in this case. The case must be settled by the comparable law of
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, the co-owner of the condominium will
request the court to appoint a deputy to be specific representatives to handle
the demand. Central expenses throughout. The other relevant proceedings in
accordance with the regulations of the condominium juristic person Milford
Paradise Condotel under Section 75
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6042/2551.
Under the hire purchase contract,
Clause 10, paragraph one states that if the hire-purchaser has died during the
hire-purchase ... Land under lease shall be subject to Section 39 of the
Agricultural Land Reform Act, BE 2518. Section 39 states that "land
acquired by a person entitled to agricultural land reform shall be segregated.
Or transfer the rights to the land to others. Except as an inheritance to the
heirs. This is in accordance with the guidelines. Procedures and conditions
prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations ", but there are no regulations
issued under the law. However, there is a regulation of the Agricultural Land
Reform Commission. Methods and conditions of transfer and inheritance. The
lease or lease of land for agricultural land reform, BE 2535, issued by virtue
of Section 30 paragraph six of the said Act, which the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 4, paragraph two, provided that there is no law. To raise the
case. Judgment of the case is comparable law. When the Agricultural Land Reform
Code has been enacted before the death, the Agricultural Land Reform Code shall
be applied to the land pledged as part of the hire purchase contract. The land
lease of the land must be in accordance with the rules of the Agricultural Land
Reform Commission. Therefore, the lease of the f. Inherited the inheritance to
the spouse is the first plaintiff in accordance with the regulations. Agricultural
Land Reform Commission on Rules, Procedures and Conditions for Transfer and
Legacy Leasehold or lease of land for agricultural land reform, 1992. Chapter 2
Legacy of lease or hire purchase Clause 11, which states that "When a
farmer dies, the right to lease or lease to a spouse is granted. First ".
So the resolution of the Agricultural Land Reform Commission ruled to split the
right. The lease of the F has no effect on the rights of the plaintiff to
defend the plaintiff's share of lease rights to all plaintiffs. The problem is
the law of public order. The Supreme Court has the power to raise its own
diagnosis under Section 142 (5)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1854/2551.
The death of an illegitimate child that was
approved by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1627, but the effect of such
a law only to be considered a child as a successor. The lawful son is entitled
to inherit his father only. This has resulted in the unlawful father being a
legitimate father. The inheritance of a child as a heir in accordance with
Section 1629. No objection, the father is dead, is not the heir or the interest
in the estate of the deceased has no right to refuse or request the court to
set himself as the trustee of the person. The problem is that the law will be
raised to adjust the case already. The case is not required by Section 4 to
determine the case in accordance with local custom. Or a comparable law. Or
diagnosed according to general law.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1727/2551.
Section 55 and Section 188 (1) of
the Civil and Commercial Code shall be legally required to be exercised by the
court by filing a request in that case, but at the request of the petitioner.
Request for court order showing that the home where the person. Growing up in
the land of others is the ownership of the petitioner. No law supports the
claimant to do so. The applicant is not entitled to file a lawsuit without a
dispute. If the petitioner is disputing the right or duty of the house. The
petitioner would like to present his case to the court with jurisdiction as a
dispute. According to Civil Code Section 55 of the Land Section 78 and the
Ministerial Regulation No. 7 (BE 2497), which. Issued under the provisions of
the Land Code, BE 2497 is the case that the law on how to register the
acquisition of ownership of land in accordance with Civil Code Section 1382 is
not the same law applied to the case. Of the petitioner
Judgment of the Supreme Court
381/2551.
The defendant built a house in the
land, which was then the defendant then split the land. Some parts of the
defendant's house penetrate into the land disputes that separate from that
land, which is later transferred to the plaintiff. In case there is no law
applicable to the case directly, it must be compared with the nearest law. Very
well under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, and the law that is very
close to be adjusted to the fact that the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
1312 when the case can be regarded as such encroachment in good faith.
Defendant is a homeowner who is encroaching on Section 1312, the plaintiff has
no right to sue to force the defendant to dismantle. There is only the right to
demand that the defendant use the land where the defendant built a house
encroachment, but the defendant to pay land to the plaintiff, it must be under
the provisions of Civil Code Section 142, which prohibits. The court does not
rule over or except in the case. Except for the six exceptions in that
provision. When the plaintiff does not sue and there is a lawsuit in this case,
and the case is not subject to the exception under Section 142, the court can
not judge the defendant liable for land use fees to the plaintiff. Because the
judgment is over the request. The plaintiff did not sue and have requested the
defendant in this matter. The error of the plaintiff's own fault. The plaintiff
will claim the fault of the shortcomings to the Court of Appeal in violation
of. Laws are not available.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6593/2550.
The defendant built a house in
the land of the landlord in good faith. The house is owned by the defendant
after the death of the land. It appears that the defendant's home is in the
land. The ownership of the defendant. But the roof structure of the house,
which is attached to the house, is part of the house. The ownership of the
plaintiff. This is comparable to the planting of houses encroaching on other
people's land. Honestly, according to the law, it can be considered that the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1312, the first paragraph is a very close
law. In that case, there is no law to be raised for the case and there is no
consensus. Local tradition It must be compared with the law that is very close
to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, paragraph two, when the first
paragraph of Section 1312, with the provisions of Section 4 paragraph two to
adjust the case. The land of the plaintiff, the roof of the defendant's home is
encroaching upon it is a consolation. To register the rights under the
provisions of Section 1312 first paragraph.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7024/2549.
Section 18, Paragraph 1 of
the Trademark Act, BE 2534 (1991), which provides for the determination of the
appeal of the Trademark Board is final, means the decision appealed to the
Trademark Board. Legally or legally. If the decision is unlawful or unlawful.
The appellant will bring the case to the court to review the decision of the
appeal. So when the plaintiff claims that the decision is unlawful. The
plaintiff has the power to prosecute this case. Establishment of the
Intellectual Property and International Trade Court and Procedure Intellectual
Property and International Trade, 1996, Section 26, Civil Code Section 55. The
plaintiff does not have to file a lawsuit within 90 days from the date of
receipt of the decision on the appeal of the Trademark Board. This case is not
an appeal against the decision of the Registrar. There is a person who opposes
registration under Section 35 to Section 38, but is an appeal against the order
of the Registrar. And the decision of the Trademark Board under Section 16 and
Section 18, and the case can not be brought within 90 days from the date of
receipt of the decision of the Board of Trademark pursuant to Section 38 shall
apply as a The law is very close to Article 4 of the Civil and Commercial Code,
because it would be very similar laws apply to a limited. People's rights
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1820/2548.
The applicant, who is a partner, is
not limited to the liability of a limited partnership. The sole petitioner to
sign and seal the shop has the power to act in lieu of the mall so that the
petitioner can do business in the name of the mall, as a remedy for the
malfunction of the mall without damaging the stock. The manager refused to sign
the power of attorney together with the petitioner. To prosecute for damages
caused by other fraudulent mall damaged the store. The request of the
petitioner is not the case of the representative of the shopping mall under
Section 73 of the Code, but there is no law to raise the case. There is no
local custom in this case. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the relevant
law to come to the case under Section 4, Section 2, and Section 73 is the
closest law that can be used to determine the case. In fact, the petitioner can
be named as a temporary representative in accordance with the law.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
307/2547.
Supplementary to Customs Act BE
2469, Section 112, with the increase of trade tax under Section 89 bis of the
Revenue Code. At that time. And the local tax, not interest or surcharge. Civil
and Commercial Code, Section 329, paragraph one, neither the provisions of this
section is a law similar to that applicable to the case. Both plaintiffs can
not take the money that the guarantor paid to pay the debt before the tax
increase, if the debtor is obliged to commit to the creditors to act to repay
the debt. Same with many debts. During multiple liabilities with equal
insurance, the heaviest debt to the debtor was removed. When the tax debt is
the heaviest debt to the debtor because of the legal burden as follows: tax
debt will be released before the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 328,
paragraph two.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1820/2548.
The applicant, who is a partner, is
not limited to the liability of a limited partnership. The sole and authorized
signatory and seal of the shop have the authority to act as a store. The
petitioner can do business in the name of the mall, which resolves the obstacle
of the shopping mall is not damaged because other managing partners refused to
sign the power of attorney together with the petitioner to prosecute for
damages. Fraudsters mall cause mall damage. The request of the petitioner is
not the case of the representative of the shopping mall under Section 73 of the
Code, but there is no law to raise the case. There is no local custom in this
case. The law requires that the law be similar to the case under Section 4,
Section 2, and Section 73 is a law that is very close to the case. Therefore,
if the truth of the request, the court can set the petitioner. Be a temporary
representative under the law.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
50/2540.
Defendant intended debt by
converting cash checks, which promised a kind of independent force when the
plaintiff has paid only part of the defendant is liable to pay the debt until
the adoption of the check to cash exchange. law does not set age, specifically,
so age of ten years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 164 was
applicable at the time the plaintiff may enforce claims, it appears that the
defendant pay a debt in part to the plaintiff last date June 30, 2534, which of
the liability to the plaintiff the age of interruption stopped and started the
age of new since that date, plaintiff filed this case on April 30, 2536 the age
of ten years, claims the plaintiff does not expire The. The petition accused
the application checks to exchange cash no law directly to the local customs
and not to raise the fine to the case so requires, compared to similar laws,
particularly the Law of the loan when the application checks to redeem cash.
amounted to more than 50 U.S. do not evidence a letter signed by the defendant
as a major plaintiff sued the defendant is not liable for the defendant to the
plaintiff filed a lecture about bringing checks to the cash redemption of a
loan or not guilty. This agreement must be evidenced in writing signed by the
borrower is so important in this petition of the defendant is inconsistent with
the Supreme Court not to accept the defendant's decision.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
6062/2539.
Defendant's contacts, the Port
Authority of Thailand for the ship docking and unloading goods from ships to
the police station, the Port Authority of Thailand's products ship to report to
the Marine Department and the Customs Department, Immigration Department
contact. Send a check to city officials to notify people that accompany the
ship to its message.Receiver becomes aware of the arrival of the goods and the
receiver to receive goods from the Port Authority of Thailand by the defendant
as the Order launched an action instead of shipping companies only is not
enough to assume the defendant is a carrier or shipper. disputes with companies
such as the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 616 and Section 618, the law
applicable at the time the dispute and the laws that close particularly on
carriage of goods by sea, because while the article. This case is not disputed
by the law and will not appear on the local customs of the time the defendant
is not a carrier or carriers involved in the shipment did not dispute the
defendant liable for loss of the cargo dispute. during transport.
Judgement of the Supreme Court
7350/2537.
Marine insurance contract is
made. Thailand has no law on the sea. Nor customary. Cases must be diagnosed by
general principles of law. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section
4, when the policy made in English. British law should be considered as a
general law. Insured under the policy has prompted the boat to inspect. And
follow the instructions to repair ships. English legal text such as the
guarantee of the insured. A promise that the insured must comply strictly. And
need not contain the end of that If the insured and the insurer failing to be
free of liability. Insured does not comply with the policy prior to ship out to
sea. When shipwrecked abroad. The insurer is not liable for the reinsurance
companies have paid to the defendant in a claim, please. This is money paid to
the insurer, although the opinion that the insurer is not responsible for the
conditions in the policy the plaintiff as the mortgagee is unable to inherit
property claims are.
