Section 425 Employee shall be jointly liable with the employee in violation of the employees have done in the informal employment.
Section 426 employers who have used the compensation to an employee violates a third party to do it. Prefer to pay by the employee.
Section 427 provisions of section two before that. Your souls shall apply, mutatis mutandis, and agents.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7552/2550.
The legal age limit to begin from the time that may force claims to be the case, the plaintiff sued so that Thor, the employee violated the plaintiff's employment in the formal cause of the property. Others were damaged. And the plaintiff has to pay compensation under the Supreme Court Wor. And the Bank since March 31, 2540 date is the event that the Employee shall be jointly liable with the employee in violation of the employee. Done in informal employment is the Commercial Code, Section 425, the provisions of the duties and obligations of employers and employees to join. Liable for damages from third parties has been violated as the employee, but in between the employer and employee. Rights and duties of employers and employees towards each other is just what must adhere to the Commercial Code, Section 426 states that Employers who use the compensation to an employee violates a third party to do the like to compensate the employees, so that when the Supreme Court ruled. Plaintiff became aware of the compensation to be paid to companies that. And the Bank and pay compensation to on March 31, 2540, which time after death, when Thor Thor death debt arising from a data breach at Thor. before falling to death is the legacy of the three defendants Dryadodihrnrnam. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the defendant and three nights just happen. When the plaintiff claims payment date is March 31, 2540 and claims to employees restitution under Section 426 Commercial Code law without prescription otherwise. So the ten-year old Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, even death, and Thor, but data breach debt incurred before death, that Thor made a legacy to fall three defendants who are brought Dryadodihrnrnam age, according Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph four, the age of the claims of creditors Ehgamrndu used for this case is not the case, so when the plaintiff sued the three defendants on September 29, 2547 but before the end of ten. years after the plaintiff has the right to call out to Thor does not terminate the plaintiff sued.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 386/2550.
2 The plaintiff sued the defendant as the defendant violated an employer as a defendant in two of the employer violated the employment. And the three defendants jointly liable as a recipient Prauanpaicgmhun indemnity liability of the defendant and the defendant a 2, 3, is different. For the defendants 1 and 2, the age of 1 year from the date the victim knew of the infringement and should be aware of the compensation required under the Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one of the defendant, 3 years from the age of 2 days. casualty under Section 882, paragraph one at the age of the lawsuit accused the first of two defendants to three can be separated from each other under section 295 given age as you or a penalty only to the debtor who is accused of three can not be lifted. age, under Section 448, paragraph one of the battle.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2841/2548.
Record daily reports about the case, labeled "on December 23, 2539 were passenger car drivers, and Por that.'s Drivers pick up. Meet to negotiate compensation. The agreement has called for the Por Wor. Repairing vehicles damaged in the original condition that. Let agreed to the proposal in all respects, "the document says no to the second plaintiff's damages are. malicious injury to the body and did not identify any other damages. Both the plaintiff should receive compensation from the defendant violated a message also appeared to agree that the parties agreed to settle the disputes that exist or will be willing to take up the claims were different. Or messages that the plaintiff did not intend to sue the two defendants, both civil and criminal the next. Record daily reports about the lawsuit is not a compromise agreement. Debt breach between the two plaintiffs and defendants have not yet hold a second defendant as a defendant employer is liable to the plaintiff both
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4431/2547.
Defendant, the plaintiff was an employee of a drive in the employment of people with negligence since her death. Heirs of the deceased sole plaintiff sued as the employer claims. Justice of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff claims with interest and fees to the plaintiff the value fees the Commercial Code, Section 426, which represents employers that have used the compensation to third parties for violation of the employee. Do it like to get compensation from the employee, the employer and therefore the plaintiff can use the compensation to a third party is like to be. Receive compensation from the employee only claims to be using to third parties insofar as it is for Court fees that the plaintiff pay to the heirs of the deceased is a liability judgments arising from litigation between the plaintiff and the heirs of the deceased and the plaintiff is the underdog Court fees compensation case is not directly resulting from the defendant violated the plaintiff has no right of recourse to the defendant to pay the Court fees.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3373/2545.
The plaintiff, the employer. B., who died will trigger compensation to B. B. causing the third party during the performance of the employable The plaintiff must pay compensation to a third party to it. It will be entitled to take legal action to claim compensation for the plaintiff, and then return to the outsider. The employee under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 426, when the plaintiff has not paid the debt to third parties. The plaintiff then sued the defendant does not have the power to the heir of B. Such liability to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3091/2535.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 426 states that the employer was pay the employee only claims that an employer can pay to a third party to violate the employee has made only Court fees in cases before the injured party to sue employers and employees to jointly liable for violations. court party liability for each other that the discretion under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 161 of compensation for violation of the court may order the liable parties as provided in Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428 to 447, which does not mention Court fees at the parties must pay in the infringement case. Therefore, the court considered Court fees employers and employees as compensation to injured parties in cases before a claim for infringement does not. Employers are asking employees to sue to recoup court Court fees employers and employees to jointly pay a total amount not injured. Judgement in the case, but such a result, employers and employees as joint debtors of the victims. Liability in the joint debtors shall be in accordance with Section 296, which decreed that should each be liable to equal parts in this case, the employer is entitled to workers compensation Court fees the payment exceed the liability return of workers as section
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4309/2545.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, 2, jointly liable for the defendant to 1 as the employer of the defendant at one without the lawsuit to the defendant to 2 liability in virtue of a breach of the c. Where an employee, another defendant, two are when the defendant, one does not. be liable to the plaintiff because the defendant is not a person who commits a violation perished There is no debt to the second defendant as a joint employer of the defendant liable for plaintiff anymore. The District Court sentenced the defendant to a dismissal, but defendant sentenced to 2 liability to the plaintiff by claiming liable for violations of the c. And violated the employees in the employ of the defendant is a judge out of action 2.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1351/2543.
Truck, ten-wheel vehicle accident with a defendant, third ownership and carriers, even defendants 3 to provide the defendant to two leasing truck ten wheels that but accused the three, it is the taxpayers to use. Knock-transport type of person all the time every year and allow the defendant to two the truck ten wheels to transport operator on behalf of the defendant to three circumstances that can be considered that the defendant, 2 and 3 are mutually beneficial in The transport operator. The defendant first employed as driving trucks ten wheel of a defendant to 3 on the defendant to an action infringed on informal employment and the transport operator which business defendants 2 and 3 are mutually beneficial accused the 3 so. be jointly liable with the defendant, 1 and 2, with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2569/2540.
The plaintiff and defendant, a signature in a daily report about the case that the defendant at an acceptable error in the negligence and willing to compensate the plaintiff 6,000 baht from the damages of about 10,550 baht if the defendant that a failure to make payment scheduled for the plaintiff. civil litigation is that Agreed to pay damages as well as the exact number then. Held that the plaintiff and defendant, a settlement agreement with respect to damages caused by violation of data driving collided with a different finish to give grace to each other. A compromise agreement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 850 has resulted in liability claims arising from the data breach and to hold the end of the plaintiff and the defendant has a right as shown in the compromise agreement. When the debt arising from a data breach, and then extinguished the liability of a defendant accused of a violation, and 2 and 3, which must be jointly liable with the defendant as an employer would also hold. Plaintiffs do not have the power to take legal action against the defendant in violation of the three data. Despite this problem, and the third defendant, a petition, but is not a problem with the debt may not be distinguishable. Justice of the Supreme Court has the power to affect the defendants 1 and 3, according to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 245 (a) of Section 247.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 117/2540.
Lorry driver accused of 3-end collisions cause the motor tricycle tricycle car to bounce off people's car d company. Then drive it to collide with the end of passenger cars are even logically, because tire Mae pump brake break is not act of God, because if the defendant, 3, who drive trucks to monitor and maintain truck regular nature of a professional driving. it would prevent a tire pump, brake mother was suddenly broken by the three defendants, so acting negligently causing the car d company. Have been damaged. Defendant 3 to employees driving the defendants 1 and 2, the drive truck of the accused 1 and 2, the employers in the informal employment after that, even if the defendant 3: Corruption Drive to personal business and then to act. violation of any others, would be the tasks in between the employer and the employees do not like outsiders, but in the case considered in informal employment violated the defendants 1 and 2 will be jointly liable with the defendant, 3. with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 6935/2539.
Accused 2 and 3, Thor mill operation together when a defendant, a truck driver employee of the defendant to three trucks of rice mill Thor's instructions to send the three defendants with negligent collision. the plaintiff's motorcycle causing serious injury to the plaintiff as is done in violation of the employment of the defendant, the defendant, 2 and 3, 2 and 3, as employers are jointly liable to the plaintiff by
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5398/2538.
Defendants 2 to 4 charge stand out vehicle registration card to the card. Card and check out while the car from the parking lot at the entrance barrier stall parking lot Responsible for the security of the defendant to 2 to 4 is about preventing those who do not own cars to the car from the parking lot directly or recovery of stolen vehicles. The parking lots and the rear parking pass with the message that the service parking lot will have to keep cards in order to make time to bring a car from a parking lot, otherwise the company will not let the car go out unless to find other evidence to show confirmation. When the car park entrance is the only way is if the defendants 2 to 4, which is strictly stable block card check, it will be difficult for the plaintiff's car to be stolen. The defendant to 2 to 4 are not careful examination parking pass strict. Which a waiver of duties to prevent car theft is a direct result of the car stolen to the plaintiff. And a negligent act is in violation of the plaintiff by the defendant and Commercial Code, Section 420 2 to 4 shall be liable for the plaintiff.
Section 426 employers who have used the compensation to an employee violates a third party to do it. Prefer to pay by the employee.
Section 427 provisions of section two before that. Your souls shall apply, mutatis mutandis, and agents.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7552/2550.
The legal age limit to begin from the time that may force claims to be the case, the plaintiff sued so that Thor, the employee violated the plaintiff's employment in the formal cause of the property. Others were damaged. And the plaintiff has to pay compensation under the Supreme Court Wor. And the Bank since March 31, 2540 date is the event that the Employee shall be jointly liable with the employee in violation of the employee. Done in informal employment is the Commercial Code, Section 425, the provisions of the duties and obligations of employers and employees to join. Liable for damages from third parties has been violated as the employee, but in between the employer and employee. Rights and duties of employers and employees towards each other is just what must adhere to the Commercial Code, Section 426 states that Employers who use the compensation to an employee violates a third party to do the like to compensate the employees, so that when the Supreme Court ruled. Plaintiff became aware of the compensation to be paid to companies that. And the Bank and pay compensation to on March 31, 2540, which time after death, when Thor Thor death debt arising from a data breach at Thor. before falling to death is the legacy of the three defendants Dryadodihrnrnam. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the defendant and three nights just happen. When the plaintiff claims payment date is March 31, 2540 and claims to employees restitution under Section 426 Commercial Code law without prescription otherwise. So the ten-year old Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, even death, and Thor, but data breach debt incurred before death, that Thor made a legacy to fall three defendants who are brought Dryadodihrnrnam age, according Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph four, the age of the claims of creditors Ehgamrndu used for this case is not the case, so when the plaintiff sued the three defendants on September 29, 2547 but before the end of ten. years after the plaintiff has the right to call out to Thor does not terminate the plaintiff sued.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 386/2550.
2 The plaintiff sued the defendant as the defendant violated an employer as a defendant in two of the employer violated the employment. And the three defendants jointly liable as a recipient Prauanpaicgmhun indemnity liability of the defendant and the defendant a 2, 3, is different. For the defendants 1 and 2, the age of 1 year from the date the victim knew of the infringement and should be aware of the compensation required under the Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one of the defendant, 3 years from the age of 2 days. casualty under Section 882, paragraph one at the age of the lawsuit accused the first of two defendants to three can be separated from each other under section 295 given age as you or a penalty only to the debtor who is accused of three can not be lifted. age, under Section 448, paragraph one of the battle.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2841/2548.
Record daily reports about the case, labeled "on December 23, 2539 were passenger car drivers, and Por that.'s Drivers pick up. Meet to negotiate compensation. The agreement has called for the Por Wor. Repairing vehicles damaged in the original condition that. Let agreed to the proposal in all respects, "the document says no to the second plaintiff's damages are. malicious injury to the body and did not identify any other damages. Both the plaintiff should receive compensation from the defendant violated a message also appeared to agree that the parties agreed to settle the disputes that exist or will be willing to take up the claims were different. Or messages that the plaintiff did not intend to sue the two defendants, both civil and criminal the next. Record daily reports about the lawsuit is not a compromise agreement. Debt breach between the two plaintiffs and defendants have not yet hold a second defendant as a defendant employer is liable to the plaintiff both
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4431/2547.
Defendant, the plaintiff was an employee of a drive in the employment of people with negligence since her death. Heirs of the deceased sole plaintiff sued as the employer claims. Justice of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff claims with interest and fees to the plaintiff the value fees the Commercial Code, Section 426, which represents employers that have used the compensation to third parties for violation of the employee. Do it like to get compensation from the employee, the employer and therefore the plaintiff can use the compensation to a third party is like to be. Receive compensation from the employee only claims to be using to third parties insofar as it is for Court fees that the plaintiff pay to the heirs of the deceased is a liability judgments arising from litigation between the plaintiff and the heirs of the deceased and the plaintiff is the underdog Court fees compensation case is not directly resulting from the defendant violated the plaintiff has no right of recourse to the defendant to pay the Court fees.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3373/2545.
The plaintiff, the employer. B., who died will trigger compensation to B. B. causing the third party during the performance of the employable The plaintiff must pay compensation to a third party to it. It will be entitled to take legal action to claim compensation for the plaintiff, and then return to the outsider. The employee under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 426, when the plaintiff has not paid the debt to third parties. The plaintiff then sued the defendant does not have the power to the heir of B. Such liability to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3091/2535.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 426 states that the employer was pay the employee only claims that an employer can pay to a third party to violate the employee has made only Court fees in cases before the injured party to sue employers and employees to jointly liable for violations. court party liability for each other that the discretion under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 161 of compensation for violation of the court may order the liable parties as provided in Civil and Commercial Code, Section 428 to 447, which does not mention Court fees at the parties must pay in the infringement case. Therefore, the court considered Court fees employers and employees as compensation to injured parties in cases before a claim for infringement does not. Employers are asking employees to sue to recoup court Court fees employers and employees to jointly pay a total amount not injured. Judgement in the case, but such a result, employers and employees as joint debtors of the victims. Liability in the joint debtors shall be in accordance with Section 296, which decreed that should each be liable to equal parts in this case, the employer is entitled to workers compensation Court fees the payment exceed the liability return of workers as section
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4309/2545.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, 2, jointly liable for the defendant to 1 as the employer of the defendant at one without the lawsuit to the defendant to 2 liability in virtue of a breach of the c. Where an employee, another defendant, two are when the defendant, one does not. be liable to the plaintiff because the defendant is not a person who commits a violation perished There is no debt to the second defendant as a joint employer of the defendant liable for plaintiff anymore. The District Court sentenced the defendant to a dismissal, but defendant sentenced to 2 liability to the plaintiff by claiming liable for violations of the c. And violated the employees in the employ of the defendant is a judge out of action 2.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1351/2543.
Truck, ten-wheel vehicle accident with a defendant, third ownership and carriers, even defendants 3 to provide the defendant to two leasing truck ten wheels that but accused the three, it is the taxpayers to use. Knock-transport type of person all the time every year and allow the defendant to two the truck ten wheels to transport operator on behalf of the defendant to three circumstances that can be considered that the defendant, 2 and 3 are mutually beneficial in The transport operator. The defendant first employed as driving trucks ten wheel of a defendant to 3 on the defendant to an action infringed on informal employment and the transport operator which business defendants 2 and 3 are mutually beneficial accused the 3 so. be jointly liable with the defendant, 1 and 2, with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2569/2540.
The plaintiff and defendant, a signature in a daily report about the case that the defendant at an acceptable error in the negligence and willing to compensate the plaintiff 6,000 baht from the damages of about 10,550 baht if the defendant that a failure to make payment scheduled for the plaintiff. civil litigation is that Agreed to pay damages as well as the exact number then. Held that the plaintiff and defendant, a settlement agreement with respect to damages caused by violation of data driving collided with a different finish to give grace to each other. A compromise agreement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 850 has resulted in liability claims arising from the data breach and to hold the end of the plaintiff and the defendant has a right as shown in the compromise agreement. When the debt arising from a data breach, and then extinguished the liability of a defendant accused of a violation, and 2 and 3, which must be jointly liable with the defendant as an employer would also hold. Plaintiffs do not have the power to take legal action against the defendant in violation of the three data. Despite this problem, and the third defendant, a petition, but is not a problem with the debt may not be distinguishable. Justice of the Supreme Court has the power to affect the defendants 1 and 3, according to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 245 (a) of Section 247.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 117/2540.
Lorry driver accused of 3-end collisions cause the motor tricycle tricycle car to bounce off people's car d company. Then drive it to collide with the end of passenger cars are even logically, because tire Mae pump brake break is not act of God, because if the defendant, 3, who drive trucks to monitor and maintain truck regular nature of a professional driving. it would prevent a tire pump, brake mother was suddenly broken by the three defendants, so acting negligently causing the car d company. Have been damaged. Defendant 3 to employees driving the defendants 1 and 2, the drive truck of the accused 1 and 2, the employers in the informal employment after that, even if the defendant 3: Corruption Drive to personal business and then to act. violation of any others, would be the tasks in between the employer and the employees do not like outsiders, but in the case considered in informal employment violated the defendants 1 and 2 will be jointly liable with the defendant, 3. with
Judgement of the Supreme Court 6935/2539.
Accused 2 and 3, Thor mill operation together when a defendant, a truck driver employee of the defendant to three trucks of rice mill Thor's instructions to send the three defendants with negligent collision. the plaintiff's motorcycle causing serious injury to the plaintiff as is done in violation of the employment of the defendant, the defendant, 2 and 3, 2 and 3, as employers are jointly liable to the plaintiff by
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5398/2538.
Defendants 2 to 4 charge stand out vehicle registration card to the card. Card and check out while the car from the parking lot at the entrance barrier stall parking lot Responsible for the security of the defendant to 2 to 4 is about preventing those who do not own cars to the car from the parking lot directly or recovery of stolen vehicles. The parking lots and the rear parking pass with the message that the service parking lot will have to keep cards in order to make time to bring a car from a parking lot, otherwise the company will not let the car go out unless to find other evidence to show confirmation. When the car park entrance is the only way is if the defendants 2 to 4, which is strictly stable block card check, it will be difficult for the plaintiff's car to be stolen. The defendant to 2 to 4 are not careful examination parking pass strict. Which a waiver of duties to prevent car theft is a direct result of the car stolen to the plaintiff. And a negligent act is in violation of the plaintiff by the defendant and Commercial Code, Section 420 2 to 4 shall be liable for the plaintiff.
