Section 237
The creditor would like to request the court to revoke the act of any debtor
has done it is known that the way to the creditors unfavorable. However, this
clause shall not apply. If it appears that while doing the act. The person who
has been proliferated, but it is not aware of the actual message that the
creditors have to be unfavorable. If the case is to make a complaint. You only
know that the debtor is only enough to withdraw.
The provisions mentioned in
the preceding paragraph. You must not apply to any act that does not have the
property rights.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 3211/2559.
The case before the plaintiff
sued the two defendants against the Thonburi Civil Court asked the court to
order the revocation. Transfer of title deed No. 32761
with building Between those who oppose the two fraudulent under Section 237 of this case, the petitioner filed a petition for the
revocation of the transfer of land and buildings, which is fraudulent.
Bankruptcy Act, 1940, Section 113,
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237, which is the
subject of bankruptcy law gives the petitioner a special case to act on behalf
of the creditor to maintain the right of. The creditors and collectors' assets
are returned to the property and brought to the creditors in the bankruptcy
case. When the applicant is not the plaintiff in the case before. The filing of
this petition is not a filing of a lawsuit. Prohibited under Section 173 (1) of the Civil and Commercial Code, Bankruptcy Court and
Bankruptcy Procedure Section 2542
Section 238. The
revocation of the preceding paragraph shall not affect the rights of third parties.
In good faith, before the lawsuit was revoked.
Incidentally mentioned in the
preceding paragraph. You shall not apply. If the right is acquired by
affection.
Section 239. The
revocation shall be of benefit to all creditors.
Section 240
Request for Revocation You can not prosecute after one year from the time the
creditor knows the cause of the material to withdraw. The ten years since the
act.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 1074/2560.
This case, the plaintiff sued
as the estate of MPs, which on June 26, 2003
MP is a creditor to sue the defendant to pay the damages. During the
trial. On June 14, 2004, the
defendant registered the transfer of land under the title deed no. 23125 and 23126 to the defendant 2 to 4, which is affectionate son. It does
not appear that the creditor knows that when the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 240 provides for the request for revocation of
fraud. No lawsuit will be allowed until one year after the creditor has known
the cause of the material for revocation. Ten years from the date of the legal
act as follows: age of 1 year, so it is not started
because the creditor died before the death of the four defendants do not know
the cause. Revoke Even the plaintiff as the estate of the MPs have sued the
four defendants are criminal charges of cheating creditors by describing a
criminal case. The plaintiff knows the offense of the four defendants on
October 18, 2007, it still can not be
held that the creditor knows the cause of the request to withdraw the fraud on
that day, the case must be enforced by 10 years, Section 240 at the end of the plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 20, 2014, not to exceed 10 years
from June 14, 2004, the date the
defendant made a legal transfer of land dispute to the defendant 2
to. 4, by claiming the plaintiff's indemnity to the
10-year sentence under Section 240,
at the end.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9852/2559.
According to the minutes of
the Board of Directors Meeting of Thai Asset Management Corporation (TAMC), the
chairman of the liquidation committee of the Thai Asset Management Corporation
is authorized to act as the general or specific authorized representative of
the Thai Asset Management Corporation. The resolution authorizes the Chairman
of the Board to authorize the Chairman of the Board to act as the
representative of the liquidation committee under Section 10 of the Act on
Settlement of Thai Asset Management Corporation. 2011, the text of the
subsequent resolution. In the liquidation business of Thai Asset Management
Corporation Including the powers and duties of the Thai Asset Management
Corporation This is in accordance with Section 10 and Section 12 of the Act on
Settlement of Thai Asset Management Corporation, The authorized person acting
on behalf of the Chairman of the Board of Directors shall be responsible for
the duties of the Chairman of the Board for liquidation of Thai Asset
Management Corporation Can not translate that into a case where the chairman of
the Board authorized to act on behalf of the full settlement committee.
Otherwise, it becomes clear that the liquidation of the Thai Asset Management
Corporation can only be made by a single person. This does not correspond to
the purpose of the Royal Decree that requires that a person be appointed as a
liquidation committee. It does not appear that the preliminary conclusions
reached in the memorandum to the Board of Settlement Committee and resolved to
sell the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not a person who is in a
position to register their rights in property dispute before. The plaintiff has
no right to sue for the transfer of property dispute.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2675/2559.
The lawsuit to revoke the
fraud under Section 237 paragraph one, which states that. "Creditors
prefer to request the court to revoke the law, which the debtor has done both
know that it is a way for the creditors to lose. But this does not force you.
If it appears that while doing the act. The person who has been proliferated,
but it does not know the actual message that the creditors must be
disadvantageous with ... "But the plaintiff did not describe the lawsuit
to appear that while doing the legal tender to sell the land dispute, the
defendant knew. There is an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant 1
and the plaintiff's plaintiff to buy land dispute. The fact that the plaintiff
sued in the complaint. It is not possible to delist the contract of land
purchase and sale between the defendant No. 2 and No. 3 dated 20 November 2012,
according to the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff has no power to sue for the
revocation of the law between the defendant 2 and 3, the problem of power sued
is a problem of public order, although the defendant did not fight in this
case. Court of Appeal 3 has the power to raise a diagnosis under Section 246,
Section 142 (5)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
11188/2558.
The fact that one person
expresses his or her own personality or knows and allows another person to
express himself as a representative of himself or herself, is liable to a third
person who is honest as a representative of himself or herself. According to
the provisions of Section 821, unless it is expressed as a representative of
any person. An outsider who is contacted by the company must be contacted to
understand that it is the business of the person who is expressing himself.
People who are expressing themselves. To be responsible as a body. If the
outsider contacted the business. Do not get in touch by being fooled into
thinking that it is someone else's business. I have been contacted by a
reliable source who contacted me as the owner of the business itself. It must
not be the case that one person speaks another person as a representative. I do
not know what else to do. You need to be responsible as a go. It must be
considered if another person is in contact with a third party. There is no
reference to any person to be responsible. Fact of the case is that the
defendant jointly enforce the plaintiff to the plaintiff, the plaintiff
believes that the contract to buy land to sell disputes is the defendant's
share of the defendant is a defendant, the defendant is a defendant
representing the defendant. The 1st defendant to the debt restructuring of the
case between the defendant and the defendant to defend the defendant will have
money to pay the defendant. No. 1 in accordance with the terms of the debt
restructuring agreement. The first defendant was not involved or witnessed or
decided to set the price or take advantage of the land dispute between
themselves. As a reason to deny liability to the plaintiff, who is a third
party who acts in good faith and must be damaged because of this is not
possible. When the defendant jointly know that the defendant entered into a
land dispute before the plaintiff sued the defendant, the defendant, the joint
defendant that the first transfer of land disputes to the defendant, the two
defendants know that. The defendant entered into a land dispute with the
plaintiff. The action of the 1st defendant and the second defendant are in a
position to know the actual message, which is the way the plaintiff is
unfavorable before the transfer of land dispute. The plaintiff has the right to
request the revocation of the transfer of land between the co-defendant 1 and
the second defendant under Section 237 paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9740/2558.
At the contract of sale and
transfer of land dispute. The land official informed the defendant and the
petitioner that. The plaintiff filed the land pledge because the defendant made
a contract to sell the issue dated January 23, 2555, but the defendant refused
to transfer the contract. The land official has received a freeze 30 days from
April 30, 2555 and the plaintiff sued the defendant under the agreement to sell
it on May 22, 2012. The defendant and the petitioner to know and confirm the
transfer registration officer. give If any damage occurs. Thank you. Not
competent. Conditions that the plaintiff requested to revoke the fraud under
Section 237 paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5696/2558.
Claim of the petitioner is
claiming that the land transfer dispute between the debtor and the first
objection to the Insurance Act, 1992, Section 54 and Section 88 is void under
Section 150 I have no effect. The petitioner asked the court to revoke the registration
of the land dispute as follows: The request for revocation of the act of fraud
under Section 237, but the petitioner who has the authority to manage the
business and property of the debtor. Bankruptcy Act, 1940, Section 22 of the
right to pursue the property of the debtor from the person who has no right to
abide by Section 1336, which has no age.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
14934/2557.
The defendant's first transfer
of land dispute to the defendant 2 by the defendant after the defendant made a
land disputes agreement to the plaintiff and a period of only one month apart,
it can be considered that the defendant transferred the land dispute to the
defendant. 2 by the way that the plaintiff is unfavorable. When it is not a
defendant to determine whether the two defendants know that the act is a way to
make the plaintiff lose. The plaintiff is a creditor to the lawsuit to cancel
the transfer between the two defendants under Section 237 and the right to sue
the defendant to transfer the land dispute to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
12781/2557.
When considering the property.
The above can be seen. The property that the defendant has the ownership of the
plaintiff. And I live before my husband and wife with the plaintiff. Both land
and construction dispute that the defendant has a title with the defendant, 2
with the regular income of the defendant will be enough to pay the plaintiff's
debt under a compromise agreement. The fact is that the defendant to withdraw
money to buy land to build a dispute. But when the defendant has enough
property to pay the debt to the plaintiff. The action of the defendant does not
affect the status and ability of the defendant to pay such a case like this,
the plaintiff has no right to sue the lawsuit against the purchase of land and
buildings that the defendant entered the name of the defendant. 2 is the owner
of the title because it is not the plaintiff as a creditor disadvantage.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1814/2013.
The plaintiff sued for the
revocation of the registration of the transfer of real estate is a disadvantage
to the person in the position to register their rights before. Court of Appeal
Do you know the fact that the defendant sold 2. The plaintiff is a buyer of
land dispute from the defendant and has occupied the first benefit to the
plaintiff, the creditor of the defendant 1 unfavorable, even if the defendant
will pay compensation is a common fraud. The plaintiff has the right to sue for
the sale of the defendant between the two defendants under Section 237 does not
constitute a non-offense. Exceeding the request of the defendant, the petition
2, because the plaintiff's complaint described the facts about the complete
evasion of fraud. The only difference is the revocation of the registration of
transfer of immovable property to persons who are in the position to register
their own. The court will adjust the script to match the narrative, the
lawsuit, and the facts of the case.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
19883/2555.
The revocation of the fraud
under Section 237 is a law that allows the creditor to request the court to
revoke the act that the debtor has done with the proliferate. However, when the
debtor has been secured under the Bankruptcy Act, 1983, Section 113 commanded
the court official to file a petition to the court to revoke the fraud in bankruptcy
case without filing a new lawsuit if the law. To empower the Official Receiver
to act on behalf of the creditor to maintain the creditor's rights and to
collect the debtor's property. Share the asset and bring it to the creditors in
the bankruptcy case. The age to be applied to the case shall be the age of the
creditors involved, while the claim may be considered as a basis for
consideration. The date on which the Official Receiver knows the cause of the
evasion shall be deemed to be the date of commencement of the fraud. The filing
of the Official Receiver is required within 1 year from the date the creditor
related to know the cause of the delisting as prescribed in Section 240 of the
important transaction while fraudulent. It must be the creditors affected,
which must be disadvantageous from the actions of the debtor. Many of the All
creditors are creditors, which must be disadvantageous to all. Counting the age
in which the official receiver filed a petition to revoke the fraudulent
representation of each of the creditors. It must be commenced from the time
when the creditors of the relevant parties are aware of the causes of the
grounds for revocation as a basis for the request to withdraw the fraudulent.
Bankruptcy Act 2483, Section 113, it must be said. The act that the debtor has
made known that it is a way for any creditors to lose. Otherwise, it must be
considered the official receiver to withdraw the fraud, which makes the
plaintiff only one disadvantage.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5658/2552.
Both defendants will not raise the issue
that the plaintiff's right to prosecute in good faith or not. Claimed in both
lower courts. It is a problem with the power to sue, which is a problem with
the law of peace. Public Both defendants are entitled to raise the petition
under Section 249 paragraph two of the Civil Code.
Dispute land is the property of the
plaintiff and the defendant, 2 half of the defendant to the second act of land
transfer dispute to the defendant, the plaintiff did not know. Act of land
transfer dispute is not bound to land dispute in the plaintiff under Section
1361, paragraph two, the plaintiff has the right to sue for the revocation of
the land transfer law between the defendant and the defendant. The plaintiff
has half the ownership.
The two defendants cited the
facts of the company's memorandum at the end of the petition. The two
defendants recently claimed in the Supreme Court. The document was inserted
into the wrong way in accordance with the Civil Code Section 88 and the
plaintiff has no opportunity to reiterate about this document. The fact that
such documents are not available.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5386/2551.
Court of First Instance has a
civil suit in red number 352/2542 to the defendant in this case with the debt
to the plaintiff, but the defendant in this case with the unpaid. The plaintiff
asked the court to issue a warrant. During the execution of the defendant, the
defendant transferred the land dispute 2 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff sued
to this case requested to revoke the transfer of land dispute. When the
defendant in this case with the defendant in the civil case number red 352/2542
of the Court of First Instance satisfied the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not in
the position of the defendant, both defendants argue rights longer. The
plaintiff has no power to sue for the evasion of the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 237 and this case, the plaintiff sued the revocation of the land
transfer law between the defendants 1 and 2, which is related to the debt can
not be separated. Defendant 2, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the
power to adjudicate the defendant who did not petition in accordance with Civil
Code Section 245 (1), Article 247
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1971/2551.
Defendant 1 is named in the certificate as a
trustee of the property, so the holder of the right to occupy the land disputes
instead of all heirs and is obliged to share the property of the land disputes
to all the heirs only the defendant has no right and power to. The plaintiff's
land disputes fall as the plaintiff agreed to sell to anyone without the
consent of the plaintiff. Even though the second defendant will purchase the
land from the defendant in good faith, compensation and registration, it does
not have the ownership of the land dispute in the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued
the plaintiff's land dispute back. It is the right to pursue the return of
property from the non-holder of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1336,
which has no age to restore. It is not subject to withdrawal of embezzlement
under Section 237, so the age of 1 year under Section 240 shall not apply.
Defendant 2 to purchase land
disputes from the defendant, which has no right to sell the land dispute to the
defendant, 2, even the defendant will be transferred in good faith.
Compensation and registration, then the defendant has no right to land dispute.
The principle that the transferee has no right over the transferor. The
defendant. 1 registered the transfer of land disputes of the plaintiff to the
second defendant has no legal effect to use the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1785/2551.
Defendant 1 is the debtor of the plaintiff.
The transfer of land and buildings to the defendant, which is a son of
affection, so it is not necessary to diagnose whether the defendant knows that
the act of doing so will be a way for the creditors to disadvantage the
defendant. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant was entitled to pay the
debt as a legal act that has paid. This is a counter-document that clearly
states that it can not be heard.
While the defendant made a
transfer of property lawsuit to the second defendant, the defendant has no
other property. When the defendant has land and buildings, but the defendant
alone and owed the plaintiff under the sentence of two hundred thousand Baht.
And do not pay the plaintiff, but the transfer of land and buildings to the
second defendant, which is the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a creditor, there is
no way to pay off the land and the construction of such a way that the
plaintiff. As a creditor disadvantageous, so when the defendant has only
property, land and buildings only. No other property. And the transfer of land
and buildings to the defendant by affection, although not paid to the plaintiff.
It is an act of transfer, knowing that it is the way the plaintiff is a
creditor disadvantage.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1400/2551.
The power to sue for the
evasion of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237 is the power of the
plaintiff's plaintiff claims that the plaintiff has a plaintiff by the age of 1
in the path through the land of the defendant, claiming that he is entitled.
The property of others in the nature of the property. When it is a property of
the plaintiff, the first can not sue for the revocation of the embezzlement
under Section 237, but it must be repudiated in accordance with the Civil and
Commercial Code 4 in the plaintiff's plaintiff that the plaintiff is the only
that it is. The landlord from the first plaintiff without any legal
relationship with the defendant, the first plaintiff is not a creditor to the
right to sue the first and second defendants to revoke the fraud.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 8999/2550.
Defendant 1 is a managing partner of a limited
partnership. The transfer of possession of the land dispute, which is the
property of the defendant, the first defendant c. Since the date of the
contract of sale of land disputes. C was transferred to occupy the second
defendant, which is a child. Since 1980, the second defendant was entitled to
possession of the land dispute before the limited partnership A. Notify the
assessment of income tax. A juristic person from the Revenue Department of the
plaintiff on June 30, 1999, so it acts in good faith. The defendant has just
registered the transfer of land dispute to the second defendant, it is only to
have the name of the rightful owner registered. Act 1, the defendant
transferred the sale of land disputes to the defendant was not caused by fraud.
The plaintiff has no right to sue for the revocation of the land transaction
dispute between the two defendants.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6514/2550.
The creditor informed about
the reason for the transfer of the transfer on October 3, 2001 and the request
to cancel the transfer must count to the date of filing the petition under
Section 240 when the plaintiff's petitioner filed a petition to revoke the
transfer to the court. October 3, 2002 within 1 year from the date the creditor
informed the cause of the delisting, so it does not expire.
The Court of First Instance
made an order dated October 10, 2002 that the petitioner had not used the
prescribed form, so he would have to return it within 30 days from the date the
petition was filed. Only the Court of First Instance exercised the power to
make pleadings and ordered the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 18 of the
Bankruptcy Court Act, and the Bankruptcy Procedure, 1999 Section 14 only. The
court and the petitioner filed a new petition filed on November 8, 2545 within
the court order. Court of First Instance has ordered the petitioner. It is
considered part of the petition filed first. It is not a new lawsuit to count
the age of the said. The petitioner's petition is not terminated.
The act of transferring the
dispute between the debtor and the debtor has been made by the debtor and the
objection to know the actual message that the creditors have to lose. And the
petitioner requests the revocation of the transfer within the prescribed
period. The court would like to revoke that legal act as the petitioner
complained. Section 113, 114 of the Bankruptcy Act, BE 2483, but the objection
has been transferred to a third party who has been transferred in good faith
and such revocation can not hurt the right of third parties. In good faith,
before the lawsuit filed under Section 238 of the rights of the third party car
dispute is protected, so even the court will order the revocation of the
transaction between the debtor and the person. However this was at odds But
when it is not possible to revoke the transaction between the dissenter and the
third party. Singers will not be able to track the dispute back to the property
of debtors to benefit the creditors. The Supreme Court dismissed the
petitioner's request to revoke the transfer of the disputed car and forced the
claimant to pay the price on behalf of the petitioner at the petitioner's
request at the end of the petition.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5400/2550.
The transfer of property is a
legal act within a period of 1 year before the defendant to the second
bankruptcy as a transfer without compensation, which is a provision that the
Bankruptcy Section 113 under Section 114 is presumed. Prior to the defendant,
the two transferees and the objections, who are the transferees who have been
proliferated, but that it is a way for the creditors to be disadvantageous. The
opposition and the defendant 2 is responsible for bringing evidence to disguise
the presumption of the law.
Evidence that the objections
and the defendant 2 do not have sufficient weight to listen to disregard the
presumption of law. Due to the property dispute despite the obligations under
the lease for more than 10 years, the dispute is still worthwhile, but the
second defendant transferred to the dissenter without compensation, while the
case has a creditor filed a request for payment. Total debt of 5 persons.
86,908,418.05 Baht Facts that the defendant to the second transfer of the
dispute to the defendant by the second defendant and the opposition know that
the way to make all the creditors have to be disadvantageous. The act was
fraudulently under Section 237
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2738/2550.
The lawsuit was filed by the
police. Section 237, the plaintiff must sue the two parties to do the act. The
court will enforce the request of the plaintiff. The results of the judgment
can not be enforced at the request of the plaintiff. The result of the judgment
can not force the person outside the case. The plaintiff sued the two
defendants, the Court of First Instance dismissed. The plaintiff appealed, but
the 7th Circuit Court ordered the distribution of the lawsuit for the
defendant. Because the plaintiff dismissed the appeal for the defendant, the
first defendant was released from the forced execution of the judgment. The
Supreme Court can not consider the request of the plaintiff because it affects
the first defendant, who is a third party. The Supreme Court ruled in the
judgment of the Court of Appeal 7 that the judge stood dismissed.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4998/2549.
Filing a lawsuit for the
redemption of mortgage. Mortgage and sale of land to the plaintiff is the case
of property owners pursue and recover their property under Section 1336, there is
no age limit.
The defendant 4 to buy land
disputes amount of up to 2,500,000 by the already know. Power of Attorney is
only the signature of the plaintiff, which does not say what authority to do
and see the message in the power of attorney. The plaintiff did not consent.
Caused by the serious negligence of the defendant, the 4th defendant of the
scam of the defendant is not due to the plaintiff defendant 1, or allow the
defendant to defend himself as a representative of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
is not responsible for the defendant in accordance with Section 821, Section
821, so the defendant is not entitled to plaintiff's land to register the sale
to the defendant. 4 Act of sale between the plaintiff and the defendant 4 is
not like it. Not plaintiff The plaintiff has the right to pursue the return of
his property from the person who has no right to hold. The plaintiff sued the
plaintiff for the sale of the plaintiff and the defendant 4.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1821/2548.
Defendant 1, the second
defendant, who is the authorized director filing the annual income tax
statement of the year 1996 in the amount of 18,779 baht, which is lower than
the assessment of the plaintiff's employees to 8,000,000 baht, the defendant to
pay additional taxes, not including penalties. And the money added to
2,817,028.21 baht when the plaintiff has a subpoena to the defendant to give a
testimony to the defendant to check that the defendant should know that. Office
must assess the defendant's first and one defendant must owe more taxes to be
paid to the plaintiff. The debt will not be known from the assessment of the
official. The defendant's first act of transferring land to the defendant's
second act was to avoid the land from being held to force the payment of taxes
to the plaintiff, which is known as a way to the plaintiff. Disadvantage and
the defendant knew the actual message, which is the way the plaintiff must be
unfavorable. The plaintiff has the right to sue for the revocation of the
transfer of land between the two defendants.
The plaintiff's income tax
department is a corporation, a department in the government. The plaintiff's
authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff or the plaintiff instead of the
plaintiff is the Director General. Other competent officials of the plaintiff
at all levels, despite the duty to work for the plaintiff, but no power to act
on behalf of the plaintiff, or prosecute the plaintiff. When the plaintiff's
plaintiff made a note to the Director-General of the plaintiff informed about
the transfer of land on March 17, 1997, it was held that the plaintiff was
aware of the fraud between the two defendants. On 17 March 1997, the plaintiff
filed a lawsuit on June 25. 2540 did not expire 1 year from the time the
plaintiff knew the cause of the revocation. So do not expire.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10252/2546.
Document 4 is a document that the plaintiff
referred to and filed with the Central Tax Court before the date of not less
than thirty days, according to Article 15 of the Tax Law, 2001, issued by
virtue of Section 20 of the. The establishment of the tax court and the method
of taxation in 1985. Therefore, even if no witness of the plaintiff to testify
to such documents, the plaintiff can put forward the said document cited in the
appeal. have
Document 4 is a general letter
to the Revenue Department tax area 10 to the Managing Director. The bank's 4
defendants, as well as another manager of the bank that the defendant and other
persons listed on the list of outstanding taxpayers. Is there a bank account?
What kind of deposit? Which account number then notified to the Revenue
Department of the area 10 not informed that the plaintiff is forced to pay the
defendant land dispute that the defendant to the fourth defendant when the
defendant does not appear that the fourth defendant. To transfer the land to
the defendants 2 and 3 to avoid forced repayment of outstanding tax debts. The
plaintiff's unfavorable. The defendant was registered 4 mortgage. Land disputes
without knowing the actual message, which is the way the creditors are
disadvantageous. The defendant is a third party who has the right to come in
good faith. Before the lawsuit was filed, the fraudulent claim was filed. The
revocation of the law between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 and 3 will
not affect the rights of the defendant 4 under Section 238.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5738 - 5739/2545.
The plaintiff sued the
defendant with the transfer of land disputes to the plaintiff. The five
defendants know the story well, but the defendant 2 to 5 also transferred the
land dispute from the defendant that the five defendants intend to transfer and
transfer of land disputes to prevent the plaintiff, the creditor of the
defendant. To pay all of the plaintiff as the defendant claims that the
defendant. 1 pay the debt Act of land transaction dispute. It is an act that is
intended to be contrary to the peace and good morals of the people. Void under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 150. The plaintiff, a stakeholder, shall
have the right to sue for revocation without the need to exercise the right to
revoke the embezzlement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237.
The plaintiff requested the
enforcement of the five defendants together to resolve the land dispute as the
name of the defendant to register the transfer to the plaintiff. If not
followed, the judgment on behalf of the intent. However, when the court ruled
to cancel the registration of the land transaction dispute, the defendant will
have the name of the owner of the 3a for the land dispute automatically. Do not
force the five defendants to jointly amend the registration to change back to
the name of the defendant at the request of the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 5207/2545.
The power to sue for the
fraudulent acts that the debtor has done by knowing that the way to the
creditors unfavorable. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237, provides for
the power of creditors. This includes creditors in accordance with the
judgment. Whether it is enforced or not. When the plaintiff claims that he is a
creditor under the judgment of the defendant in the first case and the defendant
in the first case, the debtor to act as a legal dispute to the second
defendant, knowing that it is a way for the plaintiff's unfavorable fraudulent
plaintiff. The plaintiff has the power to sue the two defendants to revoke the
fraud.
The two defendants, the husband and wife
rushed to register a divorce and a contract to divide the property to avoid the
plaintiff to bring the defendant to the disputed property that the defendant is
a total owner. Is a way to make the plaintiff unfavorable. The plaintiff has
the right to sue for the revocation of the agreement to divide the property
under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1443/2544.
Defendant 1, the estate
manager of the contract to sell the land disputes to the plaintiff. Without the
consent of another estate manager. It is not a law that has been approved by
the majority, not by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1726 is not binding
on the inheritance under Section 1724. Later consent b. Do not make the act is
not a complete legal act, the plaintiff has no right to ask the defendant 1 and
B. The contract is to be traded when the defendant 2 and 3 contracted to
purchase land disputes from the defendant at 1 and later for a fee. And then
registered. It is not an act done by knowing that the plaintiff is a way to pay
off the plaintiff has no right to sue for the revocation of the transaction
between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 and 3 under Section 237.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 2269/2543.
Complaints for the revocation
of the fraudulent under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237
is the right to creditors to reserve the property of the debtor, because the
property of these debtors will be secured under the debt under Section 214 creditor who is entitled to call the debtor pay. Debt is the
property of the debtor and must be disadvantage because the property of the
debtor is not enough to pay. This is because the fraudulent act of the debtor
has the right to sue for revocation of the fraud. Whether it is the final
judgment credit or not. Or a creditor who has not yet sued to enforce the debt.
Cause for the revocation under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 240 means that the
creditor knows that the debtor is acting to act as a way to the creditors unfavorable.
And that the debtor knows that such legal acts make creditors unfavorable. The
cause of the plaintiff in the case is a legal entity in the government refers
to the knowledge of the Director General of the Department of Forestry, who is
the representative of the intent of the plaintiff. It can not be assumed that
the cause of revocation of the fraud of the prosecutor appointed as a
representative in the civil proceedings was the knowledge of the Director
General of the Department of Forestry.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 5640/2541.
Defendant 1
Disputes land sale, which is evidence of possession (August 1) and
waivers to the plaintiff and the land dispute is not the defendant's first
defendant no longer have the right to sell. The defendant to 3,
although the third defendant to the 3 A, but the third
defendant did not occupy the land disputes, the third defendant has a name in
Miss. 3 A. So do not cause the land title. So when
Defendant 3 sold the land dispute to the defendant 4, even if the defendant 4 bought it in
good faith, paid compensation and registered lawful 4
defendants have no right in the land disputes. The general law is that. The
transferee does not have a better right than the transferor. The plaintiff sued
for the revocation of the land dispute between the defendant and the third
defendant between the third defendant and the defendant 4
claim that the defendant brought the land disputes, which the plaintiff has the
right to sell to the defendant. And asked to revoke Miss. 3
a. The third defendant is not the case is not a lawsuit to revoke the fraud, so
even the plaintiff sued more than one year from the date of this case. The
plaintiff did not terminate. The plaintiff has the power to sue for the
revocation of such act.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 2563/2541.
The mortgage is a property
that falls on the mortgaged property. And will be suspended by 6
due to the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 744,
so when the defendant 2 has land with the building dispute
disputes purchased from the dead to register the mortgage to the bank. A.
Before the plaintiff sued for the revocation of fraudulent and if it can be
heard that Bank A. who is a third party is mortgaged land and construction
dispute in good faith, then this mortgage agreement will be effective in
accordance with the law. Not suspended, even with the judgment of the court to
revoke the legal transaction of land and construction dispute between the
deceased and the second defendant, the plaintiff's request. To cancel the act
of trading land and buildings between the defendant and the dead 2,
so it does not affect the rights of the bank. A. The mortgage and effective.
Although the land and house appraisal value is 450,000
baht, the deceased owns one fourth of the land, which is 112,500
baht. However, since the land is the land that the deceased owns, together with
the relatives of the deceased, 4 persons. The fact that
the deceased will sell their own land to outsiders is difficult and low cost.
When the deceased was in trouble because the bank demanded repayment. The sale
to the second defendant, the mother of the dead with this. Even if it is sold
for only 50,000 baht, which is lower than the actual. But
it is not that it is a fraud, the way the plaintiff is a creditor disadvantage.
The plaintiff has no right to request the revocation of the legal transaction
of the property.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 7440/2540.
The lawsuit for the revocation
of the transfer of property or any act relating to the property of the debtor
under Section 114 of the Bankruptcy Act BE 2483
is not a revocation of the embezzlement under Section 113. 10
years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30
Judgment of the Supreme Court 4439/2540.
The plaintiff sued the three
defendants jointly plagiarize the plaintiff by the defendant to transfer the
land title deed No. 1778, including land disputes to the
defendant. 3 by the way that the plaintiff is unfavorable.
Request to revoke the transfer of land title deeds between the defendant 2 and 3 to return the defendant to the
second defendant to the second transfer to the defendant to split the land
dispute to the plaintiff, which filed for revocation. Fraud under Section 237 of the plaintiff's complaint in the civil case, before the
plaintiff's case alleging that the defendant. 1 as the
estate's manager. K. has entered into a compromise agreement to transfer the
land dispute area of 15 rai 3 ngan 71 square wah to the plaintiff but failed to comply with the
compromise agreement. I asked the defendant to divide the land dispute to the
plaintiff, together with the defendant 1 and two other
persons who are the guarantor jointly compensate the plaintiff. Although the
request of the plaintiff is the final result is the same is to transfer the
land dispute of 15 acres, 3 jobs, 71 square meters belong to the plaintiff. The case can not be
considered as a case of filing a lawsuit in the same matter, which will be
considered as a plea under Section 173 (1)
Judgment of the Supreme Court 4384/2540.
The provisions on the
revocation of fraud under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237
does not provide the right to the creditor who has the right to request only
the court to revoke. Creditors who have the right person in the right to
request the court to revoke any act that the debtor has done is known as a way
to make the creditors unfavorable and when the object of the debt is a house
with land, which is specific property. Other property can be transferred instead.
The debtor will have enough assets to repay the debt. It also makes the
creditors unfavorable to request a revocation.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 2345/2540.
The plaintiff has a request to
revoke the transfer of shares between the defendant 1 and
the defendant 2 and 3 and the
transfer of shares back to the defendant. 1 is the owner
of the shares, even if the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 and 3, the conspiracy to transfer shares
under the complaint by fraudulent. The plaintiff has the right to sue for the
revocation of the fraud under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237, but the revocation of the transfer of the shares will
affect the rights of third parties who have been transferred to the law
enforcement. An outsider who has not been sued in this case. Prohibited under
the Civil Procedure Code Section 145, the court can not be
judged according to the request of the plaintiff mentioned above.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 2185/2540.
In the case where the court
orders the enforcement of the judgment, it is only appropriate to release the
property that the Enforcement Officer has seized or not, according to the Code
of Civil Procedure, Section 288, first paragraph, and if
the truth is that the claimant can not. The transfer of property is dishonest
to avoid repayment to the plaintiff, then the court has the power to revoke the
fraudulent payment. Section 237 of the Civil and
Commercial Code, so the plaintiff does not need to file a petition to withdraw
the two petition out of the land dispute disputes.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 9693/2539.
The plaintiff sued the
defendant at auction 1 share, then did not pay back the
plaintiff, the creditor therefore sued. Subsequently, the defendant to sell the
land to the third defendant to avoid enforcement of the third defendant to sell
the land to the defendant in good faith, the plaintiff would like to request
the court to revoke the three defendants have to know that. Will be the
plaintiff. It's a scam. The request to revoke the transfer of land by the defendant
to return to the ownership of the land. The indictment is manifested by the
state of the charge and the enforcement of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section
172, paragraph two, then the plaintiff sued not.
Complaints for the revocation of the fraud under the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 237, the plaintiff must sue the two parties to do
that law because the effect of the verdict can not force the person outside the
case. This case, even the plaintiff, will not sue the three defendants in the
same expression from the beginning. The third defendant sued the case. But when
the Court of First Instance ordered to consider and judge together. The
plaintiff claims that the third defendant purchased the land from the defendant
and the third defendant to sell the land to the defendant, the second defendant
is aware of the real message to the plaintiff, the defendant, the defendant 1 must be disadvantageous. The request for revocation of legal
acts of land trade deed number between the defendant 1 and
3 and between the defendants 3 and 2, which the court must have a judgment. together Judgment of
the court is bound to the third defendant with the plaintiff has the power to
sue the third defendant. The Court of Appeals ruled to revoke the transfer of
land title deed number at the request of the plaintiff. But as the wrong number
is wrong, the Supreme Court should correct it. The plaintiff sued the court to
revoke the land transaction between the defendant 1 and 3 and between the third and second defendants without claiming
the land dispute as a plaintiff. But the land dispute is back to the
defendant's original one. This is a case where a request for release of
suffering can not be calculated as a price.
Judgment of the Supreme Court 6078/2539.
On behalf of the plaintiff in
September 1991 that the land dispute is the name of the
owner of the ownership of the plaintiff knows that the cause of the fraudulent
information, but the plaintiff led the Enforcement Officer seized land dispute
on July 1, 2535, which is. Any other
actions that have the same effect as the lawsuit request to revoke the
fraudulent activity and within 1 year The time when the
plaintiff has known the cause of such delinquency, the age of stumbling stops
under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/14 (5),
and as long as the land dispute is still seized. Non-renewal of age under
Section 193/15, paragraph two, so when the petitioner
claims that the plaintiff's land dispute is the plaintiff's claim that the
plaintiff is still fighting. By transferring
the land dispute to the petitioner is a conspiracy to cheat, the case is not
terminated.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5396/2539.
Defendant 2 transferred the
land from the defendant, who is the mother and inheritance of the father of the
father is still not considered as a manipulation or obscurity of the
inheritance will be eliminated inheritance. Defendant 1 was transferred to the
dispute as a legacy of the m. It was not divided to other heirs, and later was
appointed as the estate of the defendant, the first defendant to occupy the
dispute on behalf of another heir. Both the defendant did not announce the
change of possession to another heir, despite the possession of a long time, it
was not owned by the occupiers. The six plaintiffs, who are descendants of the
lawsuit, filed for a share of the inheritance, which was not divided from the
defendant, even one year after the death of the bride, or when the six
plaintiffs know or should know the death of the estate. The termination of the
claim to revoke the transfer of land between the defendants 1 and 2 is not a
lawsuit to revoke the fraud, but the lawsuit to recover the property from the
non-holder. I do not like it.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3923/2539.
The person who claims to rely
on the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237 must be the creditor of the
debtor while the debtor acts an act of transfer of property. Section 2483 of
the Bankruptcy Act, Section 113 provides that the official receiver of the
petitioner to the court is a legal matter. Bankruptcy gives the claimant the
power to act on behalf of the creditor in a special case filed in court.
Bankruptcy is not required to file a new lawsuit. The age to apply will be the
age of the creditors involved, while may be subject to the creditor's claim is
actually considered to be a date. The claimant is aware of the underlying cause
of withdrawal at the beginning of the age of inactivity. When the plaintiff
creditor requesting the petitioner to revoke the land dispute, the dispute is
known or should be aware of the reason for the revocation on November 15, 2527,
which is the date the petitioner filed the petition on 24 In March 1988, the
petitioner's petition was terminated under the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 240 and the Bankruptcy Act BE 2483, Section 1983.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2463/2539.
The plaintiff sued for the
revocation of the fraudulent under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237
is a criminal offense right in the offender fraud. It is not a civil case
related to a criminal case to hold the facts of a criminal case.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7636/2538.
Dispute land is the land of
the plaintiff, the defendant to take care of the plaintiff, the plaintiff sued
the plaintiff sued for the revocation of the certificate and the transfer of
land between the 1st and 2nd defendants can be regarded as a right to pursue
the property of the plaintiff. Not in force of age, fraudulent retraction.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
806/2538.
According to the Bankruptcy
Act BE 2483, Section 27 and Section 91, all types of creditors, whether
creditors under the judgment or not, shall submit a request for payment to the
receivership within two months from the date of the announcement. When the
Court of First Instance ordered the defendant to defend the defendant on May
19, 1986 in a case where A. a plaintiff sued the defendant is a defendant.
Bankruptcy, but the plaintiff, the creditor under the judgment did not file a
claim within the time limit until the Court of First Instance ordered the
bankruptcy of the defendant No. 1 on September 11, 1989, because the debts of
the defendant was paid in full under Section 135 (3) of the Bankruptcy Act,
1940. As a result, the defendant was released from all debts. The plaintiff claimed
that the defendant is not known that the first case was filed. A bankrupt not
because the prosecution was done openly and in accordance with the Bankruptcy
Act. Fri. 2483 law imposed by the plaintiff does not have the authority to
revoke the fraudulent charges.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
790/2538.
According to the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 237, creditors prefer to request the court to revoke
the legal acts that the debtor made to outsiders if the creditors are
disadvantageous. Defendant 1 is only the unlawful wife. The defendant debtors
are not liable for liabilities of. Because it is not a joint liability under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1490, the defendant is not the
plaintiff's plaintiff's debt to the plaintiff sued to revoke the fraudulent.
The plaintiff has no power to sue for the revocation of the transfer of land
and house disputes. Defendant 1 and 2
Judgment of the Supreme Court
733/2538.
Before the plaintiff sued the
plaintiff sued for the benefit of the defendant under the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 1562, which was filed against the defendant, which prohibits the
plaintiff sued the plaintiff, the Supreme Court in such case is binding on the
defendant, the couple in this case. Code of Civil Procedure, Section 145, first
paragraph, which stands in the lower court, both defendants have the title of
ownership of the land dispute. When the dispute in this case is just that the
plaintiff or the defendant is the owner of the land disputes, the lawsuit is no
longer required to testify the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff sued
the plaintiff's ownership of the land dispute, but the plaintiff to the
plaintiff's ownership of the plaintiff and the defendant to the title of the
title of the defendant to exercise their right to pursue the return of their
property from the defendant. According to the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1336, which does not determine the age of the non-enforceability of the
Civil and Commercial Code. Section 193/30 and the age of prohibiting the
prosecution under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 240, which applies
only to the case of revocation under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 237
only.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
142/2538.
Between the defendant was set
up a commission to investigate the wrongful act, the plaintiff was damaged, the
defendant, a divorce agreement with the wife and land disputes with the
children to the dispute is prepared to dispense. Assumption transfer of the
circumstance implied that the defendant knew that the plaintiff would be
unfavorable to the defendant that the second defendant known as the second
defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3566/2537.
The plaintiff has the power to
act on behalf of the plaintiff. When the Director-General of the Department of
the plaintiff was aware of the transfer of land, which is the way to the
plaintiff, which was a disadvantageous creditors on January 2, 2530, which
causes the withdrawal of the transfer. Counting the time to use the claim to
withdraw the transfer must be counted from that date. Even officials at
different levels The plaintiff's knowledge of the request to revoke the
transfer for more than a year, but such person is not the authority to act on
behalf of the plaintiff, it is considered that the plaintiff did not know the
claim. The plaintiff sued this case on July 31, 2530, the lawsuit within the
age of 1 year under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 240, then plaintiff
sued not to terminate.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2745/2537.
The plaintiff sued the
defendant that a fraudulent creditors and court judgment to punish the
defendant to the first case. In civil cases, the plaintiff sued for the
revocation of fraudulent claims that are not subject to criminal offenses in
fraudulent fraud. It is not a civil case involving a criminal case. The
provisions of the Code - Criminal Procedure Code Section 46 shall not apply.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
289/2537.
When the plaintiff was
employed by the law firm to investigate the property of plaintiff debtors. law
Office I was assigned to investigate. When I went to investigate and know that
the defendant has a house and land. I have made a lawsuit to the second defendant,
which is the son of A. know to report to the law firm. Know and Law Offices I
must report to the plaintiff only. Note that the plaintiff is not aware of it,
because it only has to know the property of the defendant. For the plaintiff to
enforce the case. It is only required to report to the plaintiff on June 10,
2530, the plaintiff was aware of the cause of the revocation of the fraud on
that day. When the plaintiff sued to revoke the fraud on June 8, 1988 is not
over a year, the plaintiff's case does not terminate.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2380/2535.
The request for revocation of
the auction of the Enforcement Officer claims that it has been acted in
violation of the law under the Civil Procedure Code Section 296, paragraph two,
if the court found that. The auction of the Enforcement Officer is wrong, it
will order the revocation of the sale. This has resulted in virtually no sales.
I have to transfer the property to the buyer. If the buyer has already
transferred to another person, no matter how many transfers and whether the
transferee is honest or does not pay. The transfer must be withdrawn because
the transferee does not have a better right than the transferor. As long as the
court has no order to revoke the sale as long as it is deemed that the auction
of the Enforcement Officer is in favor of the buyer is entitled to receive the
transfer and transfer of the right to the facts appear in the plaintiff's
complaint. that The plaintiff filed a case in red number. 265/2528 of the Court
of First Instance requesting the revocation of the auction of the land claim
that the auction of the Enforcement Officer is wrong. The court has ordered the
plaintiff to appeal the case is pending the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff sued
this case. When the court has not ordered the revocation of the auction in the
case, the defendant as a buyer of the auction will be entitled to transfer this
land under the court order and transfer the right to the second defendant when
the defendant. And 2 is entitled to transfer, it would not dispute the rights
or obligations of the plaintiff, but the defendant and the plaintiff is not a
debtor in the plaintiff to sue for a revocation. By the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 237 plaintiff has no power to sue.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2380/2535.
Auction of violation of Civil
Code Section 296 paragraph two, if the court ordered the withdrawal of sales.
There are no sales results. Even if the property is transferred to the buyer.
It will be necessary to revoke the transfer regardless of whether the
transferee is honest or not. But as long as there is no revocation of the
auction. The buyer is entitled to transfer both the right to transfer to the
plaintiff to sue for the revocation of the Commercial Code, Section 237 has not
been transferred and transfer does not dispute the rights or obligations of the
plaintiff under the. Section 55 as follows: The plaintiff has no power to sue
the buyer and transferee of the property.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
533/2535.
The petitioner filed a
petition to revoke the transfer of ownership of the land and buildings that the
third defendant transferred to the son of the defendant without compensation
and fraud under Section 237 of the Civil and Commercial Code, but the petition
was not described. The debtor has made a known that it is a way for any
creditors unfavorable. Therefore, the request to cancel the transfer, which
will make the plaintiff only one disadvantage. And the request under the law
must be that the debtor must be debtors before. Or while the debtor is doing
business, the way to creditors disadvantage. When it appears that the defendant
3 just owed the plaintiff after the registration of the transfer of land and
buildings to the objections to 3 years, while the third defendant transferred
the land and buildings. The plaintiff is not in the creditor of the third
defendant, the claimant has no right to request the revocation of fraud.
