Section 421 of the exercise, which would only damage to the other parties that Him as an illegal.
Judgement of the Supreme Court at 387 - 388/2550.
Defendants to build homes front cover plaintiff's land area. The plaintiff into the high seas is not convenient or not. The plaintiff would have been damaged as a special case directly Although land disputes are a home grown male defendant bank was unable to exercise that will cause damage to the plaintiff under Section 421 of Commercial Code section 1337 and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a damages action to the end. filed by the defendant to demolish the house that the plaintiff disputed the barriers to entry to the high seas.
The plaintiff is the owner of the land has the right to use their land into the high seas at any boundary. The plaintiff to build the wall and leave the land or any part of a solution to the high seas. Is indeed the right of the plaintiff. Others have no right to interfere with the rights of the plaintiff. Although plaintiff may have or not is not important fishery, because the plaintiff has the right to use land to build homes that the defendant was already into the high seas. And the plaintiff's right to choose their way into the high seas any plaintiff that is helpful and convenient to their most
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7822/2547.
Consideration must be considered when the power to sue the plaintiff filed a case before the court. Auction of property from the plaintiff shall pay the Enforcement Officer dispute by a court order. Therefore, since the frying Enforcement Officer Fair Market Agreement with knock wood. The plaintiff shall have the right to confiscate property disputes by home lacks the Commercial Code, Section 1330, which provided substantive law even after the auction has filed against the defendant shall pay the Civil Code Procedure Article 309 bis, which is the procedure. a Law and Litigation in the matter under consideration by the court would only request cancellation of the auction only. Find it on the auction is not void. And as long as there is no court sentence or to revoke the rights of the plaintiff shall pay the disputed property, it is still old. Request for cancellation of the auction under the provisions of law, law of the accused method does not affect the right of the plaintiff states a substantive law. Defendant has no right to any further property disputes. When the plaintiff told the defendant and subject to the property dispute and the defendant has the power to disregard the plaintiff sued the defendant drove away from a property dispute. And no claim of depriving out property disputes and against the plaintiff by
Judgement of the Supreme Court 8027/2546.
Tree planting and construction of the defendant in the bathroom, a land dispute between the public land that separates the land of the plaintiff and the boulevard When the plaintiff's land did not connect with existing highways, but because of land disputes are separated. And the defendant in a land dispute before the plaintiff may have title to their land like this. Plaintiffs claim that has been damaged because the defendant is a special solution to land disputes obstructing public road and not find it. If not required by Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421 and Section 1337 plaintiff sued the defendant has no authority to demolish the buildings and trees away from a land dispute.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5576/2545.
The plaintiff would have suffered even to the right to have suffered to the end to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1337, it must be of that is trouble than you should think or expect that to be normal. and why the defendant should build a wall around buildings and fences in the defendant's own land. Did not appear to be bullying the plaintiff has been damaged. Which is exercised in bad faith under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421, but somehow when the plaintiff's land on the east and west are also no fences around empty. The plaintiff would have to pass into the public believe in fair Rat (Sukhumvit 93), and the Nut Road. The plaintiff in the west to the Court itself stated that if the plaintiff can not be blocked to the public to walk away. Shows that if the plaintiff would have to walk away and walk in the future that the plaintiff is expected to own. In addition, it appears that the plaintiff did not have a home grown on the land of the plaintiff. Residential home that the plaintiff would be home grown and B. As the plaintiff is a resident. The defendant created a high 3-storey concrete buildings and walls along the fence to block the defendant's land area. It does not cause the plaintiff landowner side has been damaged or suffer more than you should think or expect that to be normal.
The Supreme Court 9671 - 9675/2544.
When the defendant's exercise of its home grown close to the public of the plaintiff's property caused the plaintiff can not use or benefit from the public of the City. The plaintiff has been damaged or suffer more than you should think or expect to use the plaintiff's land. Held that the plaintiff has been damaged as a special Case to the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421, and 1337 the defendants planted before the house would not cause the plaintiff who comes later to lose these rights are not. The plaintiff is entitled to have operating losses and damages suffered by the end of the defendants sued to demolish the building construction is the defendant in the land of the Irrigation Department of barriers which the plaintiff in and out to use in the canal Mahasawat. which is public.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1036/2543.
Although the plaintiff is a tenant quarters of a defendant to dispute but the road is a road in front of quarters that a defendant made to the people who bought or leased quarters of the defendant as a thoroughfare through the entry to the public. Dispute and the plaintiff has always been on the road for up to 17-year-old defendant was not a forbidden Even later, the first defendant to sell plaintiff Town of rent to third parties. But plaintiffs are still in the leased quarters to come. The defendant to two wall plaster mask road dispute the Road King that he bought from a defendant to the plaintiff through traffic in and out as you normally would not dispute the plaintiff's rights under Article 55, then the plaintiff Civil Code Procedure has the power to sue the two defendants.
That a defendant agreed with plaintiff and other tenants that will provide a road dispute to high streets, walkways, King forever. Otherwise, the plaintiff and the tenant others would not agree to pay to help the construction and registration of a lease with the defendant at a time up to 20 years, and the defendant, one would not allow the plaintiff and his family and others who live in quarters such as a dispute on the road all the way out as long as 17 years to compile the same even if the lease between the plaintiff and the defendant is not a specific subject matter of the disputed road. But does not appear that the defendant 1 was restricted not to the buyer or tenant quarters of the defendant to a road dispute and accused the two I know already that the defendant at a road construction disputes for the buyer or lessee to compile the use as walkways out into the streets of King. The second defendant to buy some from the road dispute that a defendant and a brick wall blocking the exit road to the settlement at the mouth of King Street. Would indicate that the two defendants exercised bad faith by the parties focus their interests, but one The need to know that damage to those who buy or rent quarters from a defendant who can not use public roads to the disputed issue of King Street was generally happy. Accused 2, it is a violation of the plaintiff, a tenant one.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2299/2541.
Dispute stalls the land of the defendant. The plaintiff purchased commercial waterfront rooms. Side next to the Soi is more expensive than the other room. Is for the purpose of trade is to sell their products on both sides. The defendant building block stalls until the plaintiff can not open the door to the side. Cause of the plaintiff tenant commercial building is not easy to do and that is why the trade. To terminate the lease. Thus the defendant's exercise of his. Cause the plaintiff, owner of commercial buildings have been damaged. Or suffer more than you should think or expect that it is normal and reasonable when taken in the state and Location of the property is ignored. The plaintiff has the operating rights to the damage or harm to the end. And call for compensation from the defendants under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421 and Section 1337.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2296/2541.
Accused building bridges of 1 meter long and 50 meters wide in the Samrong Canal, a canal public In front of the plaintiff's land a distance of approximately 1 to 2 meters in a stable and permanent manner. The plaintiff may be damaged or suffer more than you should think or expect to use the plaintiff's land is way up or way down the canal so that even if the plaintiff does not live and serve in the land, while the defendant building bridges. And the building was made into a canal to the public and public interest matter. The plaintiff would have the right to sue for the demolition of the bridges that pass land to the plaintiff suffered damage or that the end to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1337.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 722/2541.
Accused 1 and 2, collusive as a debtor and creditor to bring a lawsuit to have seized the land under contract to buy and sell auction to prevent the plaintiff forced the case to the defendant, a transfer shall be treated as a willful act to the plaintiff. have been damaged. In addition to the first defendant to the plaintiff's breach of contract then. Also assumes that the defendant 1 and 2, together with a violation of the plaintiff.
Together they made the defendant in violation of the plaintiff. Damages that the plaintiff had received the same amount. Both defendants are standing together to jointly liable for damages to the plaintiff. While the case is under appeal accused the two have agreed to a compromise agreement with the plaintiff. By allowing payments under the Supreme Court of First Instance to the plaintiff of 9,500,000 baht plaintiff accepted and not impressed demand for loans under the sentence of the defendant to two other defendants 2 withdrew the appeal only a part of the defendant, 2 the Court of Appeal allowed as follows: When the defendant second payment for plaintiff and defendant, a number of U.S. 9,500,000 is the number of debt relief under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 292 damages by the defendant to be liable to a plaintiff. Must take the land under an agreement to buy land with the two defendants to pay debts to the plaintiff, then deducted from the price of land at public auction to. Balance is the amount of damages that a defendant would be liable to the plaintiff.
Circumstances under which a defendant is expected to see that if a defendant does not transfer land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall receive damages are not available to buy land to sell. Plaintiff's damages, it is profits from the sale of such land.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 8298/2540.
Pm bridge is a bridge that enabled the construction and for about 50 years, has deteriorated so much damage may occur. Personal injuries and vehicle users to public transportation to the user. Bangkok accused the restoration process. And repair of bridges, the technical basis. To ensure stability. For the benefit vehicle users and the general public to be safe. Considered that the action The defendant's maintenance of bridges, walkways, a land which the powers and duties of the defendant. By the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Act, BE 2528, Section 89 (6) law. Although construction is way up the stairs to the bridge must be changed from the original line is a whole new stretch of the road close Quarters or the last line of the plaintiff's shop. And the bridge to the pier Cover page Shops plaintiff's cause the plaintiff has been damaged, but some even when the actions of the defendant's actions are legal. Certification can be done. The defendant did not willfully or negligently. Action against the plaintiff for the plaintiff has been damaged by illicit Is not a violation.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3815/2540.
Plaintiff's construction in Bangkok which is the capital of the country is crowded with people. Building homes, commercial buildings and other structures, cultivation is a crowded land of plaintiff's home near Ratchadapisek Road to Lat Phrao Road. Is a very mature area. Land availability and less expensive. It must be very high building to use as possible. The construction of the plaintiff in such locations should think or expect that may be of a high building near the house to cover the plaintiff's cause wind direction, light and scenery viewed from the plaintiff's home. Fall normally and reasonably, so even if the defendant is already building a wall without any air vents. But the wind blows and the light still shines through, and home to the plaintiff was reasonable. Coupled with the plaintiff was intended to install air conditioning in the plaintiff's home already. The hot weather in Bangkok For convenience the plaintiff's own products for the construction of the defendant because the air is not hot. Both the defendant building high-Bang Ban plaintiff is to find an exercise that would only cause damage to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421, not because of section 421 must be the subject of persecution by those who do focus on results. the damage to others Tnriedeiy. If the request was made in the ordinary which of such right. Even those who do will see that other people will receive some damage, it does not violate When the building did not appear that the defendant committed to focusing on libel plaintiff damages to the plaintiff Tnriedeiy. The exercise of the defendant in the construction and building, therefore it is not unlawful under the Section 421 case there is no reason to demolish the building and set the defendant's lack of interest from a functional building to plaintiff.
Co-defendant to a pole using only the earth pin. Sunset when the rain is moving in the plaintiff's house through the gap between the pole into the hole with the defendant at a dig in the soil subsidence caused plaintiff's house to the fence home Stone washed walls and concrete cracking around the home plaintiff. When it appears that the building of the defendant and the plaintiff are either home grown away from the fence line to 2 meters with the first defendant would like to create a protective cover of buildings near to the defendant in plaintiff's home. In order to prevent construction materials, cement, or water drop is home to the plaintiff damages. Without doing advanced into the area of land to the plaintiff. But a co-defendant, it did not find a co-defendant has violated the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3801/2540.
The plaintiff and the defendant is entitled to benefit from mining public body defendant has no right legally to put the slabs and earth to block the channel mouth of the plaintiff. So is a violation of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff used the water from the mine body, as the plaintiff has the right to dispute. And if the average share of water between the plaintiff and the defendant. Will have enough water both sides. The plaintiff of the plaintiff's farm open water during the dry season, less water is not enough to make the field of population But the plaintiff did not draw out the water more than necessary for the benefit of the plaintiff as it should be, which does not comply with the Civil and Commercial Code Section 1355 is not an exercise that would only damage to others. This is an unlawful act under Section 421.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3050/2540.
The verdict of the court that sentenced the plaintiff to pay debts owed money to the defendant until the payment is made. Not sentenced to the plaintiff by the defendant to pay debts amounting to put the court. The court issued the Cmbeongceb the request of the defendant, which is payable under the Supreme Court did not specify the place with money. Case must be governed by the Commercial Code, Section 324 provided for pay at the place where the domicile of the creditors do today. When the sentence that debt is debt owed money. The plaintiff, a debtor must pay money to the defendant, a creditor Domicile of the defendant. Payment of the plaintiff by the defendant under the Supreme Court to put money into court. Therefore not be the case that the defendant had received payment from the plaintiff is correct under the law. And did not inform the plaintiff of payment by bringing money onto the court for the defendant know And does not appear that the defendant was aware that plaintiff has put the money into court to sentence the defendant to pay the debt. The defendant for execution by the plaintiff's share เจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดี taken by means of court enforcement. The court thus exercised by the defendant is located for Enforcement of the sentence. When the defendant does not appear to act in bad faith. Intentionally or negligently so that the plaintiff has been damaged, but any already Accused is not illegal and does not act in violation of the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 624/2544.
M concrete on its allocation of space in front of the building of the plaintiff and the defendant. Include all the land allocated to the front all the way for people to convert to purchase homes for sale using its Moo allocated to high Phaholyothin Road was. The defendant that the defendant's employees and customers who come in contact with the defendant and the potted plants placed on the area to the sidewalk along Phaholyothin Road, causing the plaintiff could not even space to leave temporarily but it is used with the right. However, the damages to the plaintiff, which this one illegal under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421, and also the use of their rights caused the plaintiff has been damaged or suffer more than you should think or expect that will follow. normal and reasonable under Section 1337 with the plaintiff shall have the right to sue for damages or to end suffering is possible.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 877/2546.
Plaintiff to lease land from the municipality to serve as Photharam car park for hotel operations of the plaintiff. The defendant owned three quarters, which are grown on land adjacent to install canopy roof intrusion into the plaintiff's land lease. The plaintiff can not use or benefit from the land with ease. The plaintiff has been damaged or suffer more than you should think or expect to use the land. Although the plaintiff is a lessee of land. But the rent was for the benefit of the plaintiff in the hotel business. When the plaintiff is the owner of hotel properties which have suffered especially annoyed by the action of the three defendants. It shall have power to sue to eliminate the suffering that the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421 and Section 1337, although the defendant three to install roof quarters before the plaintiff will lease the land they find a cause plaintiff to lose these rights away. not The plaintiff is entitled to have operating losses and damages suffered by the end of the three defendants to sue to demolish the roof to fill out the quarters, which deter the use of rented land, the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court 7168 - 7172/2545.
Plaintiff to the defendant created a nuisance. When the defendant notice and forbid. The plaintiff did not obey. Defendant would prefer to eliminate the exercise of judicial involvement Find the right to block a fence to block the wind shall blow and the light shines in through the door and windows of the plaintiff quarters.
The defendant is a plaintiff's Town by Town walls behind doors and windows adjacent to the defendant's land area. Despite the ordinance, it is wrong that local officials must be made to the plaintiff. Because the defendant has no right to claim the construction of block wall fence, rear quarters of the plaintiff. As a reason to block the wind and light to pass out the back quarters of the plaintiff by the plaintiff does not agree with. And even though the defendant to be constructed in the land of the defendant is an exercise that would only damage the plaintiff. Thus a violation of the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1820/2545.
The second defendant to the steel and iron gates to block it because a third party to use the entrance to the dormitory. In order to protect the property of people living in the hostel is right is the nature of land ownership to protect security of people living in the land of the defendant to two phones is not that an exercise that would only. damage to the plaintiff's own people and commerce can be business as usual in front of stores. Which could be easily reduced to some But it also holds that the defendant did not exercise their second cause plaintiff whose property has been damaged. Or suffer more than you should think or expect that it is normal and reasonable when taken in the state and location of the property is ignored by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1337.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3801/2540.
The plaintiff and the defendant is entitled to benefit from mining public body defendant has no right legally to put the slabs and earth to block the channel mouth of the plaintiff. So is a violation of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff used the water from the mine body, as the plaintiff has the right to dispute. And if the average share of water between the plaintiff and the defendant. Will have enough water both sides. The plaintiff of the plaintiff's farm open water during the dry season, less water is not enough to make the field of population But the plaintiff did not draw out the water more than necessary for the benefit of the plaintiff as it should be, which does not comply with the Civil and Commercial Code Section 1355 is not an exercise that would only damage to others. This is an unlawful act under Section 421.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1992/2538.
Plaintiff rent roof installed to compile the advertising products of the plaintiff the defendant is the lessee of the adjacent quarters and installed the defendant's advertising cover advertising on the plaintiff as the plaintiff's use of the Town has hired the defendant would have. installed in the advertising business of the defendant as well, regardless of whether the defendant after the plaintiff to install advertising signs or advertising, because the installation of both the plaintiff and the defendant are also installed on the roof of the quarters, where each party Rentals can be considered to serve both the plaintiff and the defendant took advantage of the leased quarters of the land rights of the lease, each party has under the law when the defendant does not appear to install the signs to deliberately libel the plaintiff by the purpose. damage to the plaintiff to install advertising signs are perpetrated by the defendant's illegal even to conceal the plaintiff's product advertising is to find a violation of the plaintiff by the exercise of which would only give damages to the plaintiff. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421 does not.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 220/2538.
Although the plaintiff guilty Building Construction Building Control Act and the ordinance, it is the local official will need to deal with the plaintiff claimed the defendant has no right to cause the construction of sheet steel and cause the block sunlight and wind to enter buildings. And even though the defendant to the plaintiff's construction in the land of the defendant is an exercise that would only damage to other persons is a violation under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1590/2521.
Defendant filed for divorce with her husband by constantly attributed to her husband to another woman is the plaintiff and her husband went to living openly with the plaintiff as an exercise of the court. The defendant is required to be stated in the charges filed by the husband and the defendant clearly understood. Can be considered as a message in the court hearing of the parties for the benefit of their cases. Defamation is not a malfunction. And does not appear that the defendant act in bad faith. Therefore it is not that right, which would only damage to others. Accused is not in violation of the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1971/2517.
The plaintiff accused the customs union. And agreed that If the defendant graduated marriage with the defendant to the plaintiff. But when the defendant graduated. Defendant refused to register the marriage with the plaintiff. The plaintiff to lose a young and living with my husband and his wife, defendant Together without marriage. Caused the plaintiff's voluntary. Not caused by the defendant violated. The defendant refused to register a marriage with the plaintiff. It is not a violation of the plaintiff. Or an exercise that would only damage the plaintiff. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 420,421 does not require the defendant to the plaintiff claims.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1069/2509.
Car dispute that the plaintiff accused the car together to buy the car of the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant or the plaintiff and the defendant is a similar dispute with the owner as well. The exercise of any. The defendant's car. Must not be an exercise that would only damage to the plaintiff or the right does not violate the rights of plaintiffs under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421, and 1360 the defendant took car disputes to go offshore exploits the car deteriorated wear. Damage to the plaintiff that the defendant has the right to use, but may cause damage to the plaintiff and against the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant's actions are a violation of the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 949/2527.
The defendant added the text on the box drug labeling and printed using advertisements drugs that the defendant manufacturer, sold under the trademark of the accused that 'genuine' good 'Store the old' good and 'careful drug mimics' good is exercised by justified by the violation of the plaintiff, but not any part of the plaintiff's representative was told to pharmacies as well as customers of the defendant that the defendant is a counterfeit drug sales will not be sold if the base was caught selling counterfeit drugs. If the defendant loses the case and have had no right to sell drugs manufactured, sold under the trademark of the defendant customers refused to buy more drugs, the defendant purchased and then refused to pay the price. Or wait for cases to be completed before the settlement.
Judgement of the Supreme Court at 387 - 388/2550.
Defendants to build homes front cover plaintiff's land area. The plaintiff into the high seas is not convenient or not. The plaintiff would have been damaged as a special case directly Although land disputes are a home grown male defendant bank was unable to exercise that will cause damage to the plaintiff under Section 421 of Commercial Code section 1337 and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a damages action to the end. filed by the defendant to demolish the house that the plaintiff disputed the barriers to entry to the high seas.
The plaintiff is the owner of the land has the right to use their land into the high seas at any boundary. The plaintiff to build the wall and leave the land or any part of a solution to the high seas. Is indeed the right of the plaintiff. Others have no right to interfere with the rights of the plaintiff. Although plaintiff may have or not is not important fishery, because the plaintiff has the right to use land to build homes that the defendant was already into the high seas. And the plaintiff's right to choose their way into the high seas any plaintiff that is helpful and convenient to their most
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7822/2547.
Consideration must be considered when the power to sue the plaintiff filed a case before the court. Auction of property from the plaintiff shall pay the Enforcement Officer dispute by a court order. Therefore, since the frying Enforcement Officer Fair Market Agreement with knock wood. The plaintiff shall have the right to confiscate property disputes by home lacks the Commercial Code, Section 1330, which provided substantive law even after the auction has filed against the defendant shall pay the Civil Code Procedure Article 309 bis, which is the procedure. a Law and Litigation in the matter under consideration by the court would only request cancellation of the auction only. Find it on the auction is not void. And as long as there is no court sentence or to revoke the rights of the plaintiff shall pay the disputed property, it is still old. Request for cancellation of the auction under the provisions of law, law of the accused method does not affect the right of the plaintiff states a substantive law. Defendant has no right to any further property disputes. When the plaintiff told the defendant and subject to the property dispute and the defendant has the power to disregard the plaintiff sued the defendant drove away from a property dispute. And no claim of depriving out property disputes and against the plaintiff by
Judgement of the Supreme Court 8027/2546.
Tree planting and construction of the defendant in the bathroom, a land dispute between the public land that separates the land of the plaintiff and the boulevard When the plaintiff's land did not connect with existing highways, but because of land disputes are separated. And the defendant in a land dispute before the plaintiff may have title to their land like this. Plaintiffs claim that has been damaged because the defendant is a special solution to land disputes obstructing public road and not find it. If not required by Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421 and Section 1337 plaintiff sued the defendant has no authority to demolish the buildings and trees away from a land dispute.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5576/2545.
The plaintiff would have suffered even to the right to have suffered to the end to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1337, it must be of that is trouble than you should think or expect that to be normal. and why the defendant should build a wall around buildings and fences in the defendant's own land. Did not appear to be bullying the plaintiff has been damaged. Which is exercised in bad faith under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421, but somehow when the plaintiff's land on the east and west are also no fences around empty. The plaintiff would have to pass into the public believe in fair Rat (Sukhumvit 93), and the Nut Road. The plaintiff in the west to the Court itself stated that if the plaintiff can not be blocked to the public to walk away. Shows that if the plaintiff would have to walk away and walk in the future that the plaintiff is expected to own. In addition, it appears that the plaintiff did not have a home grown on the land of the plaintiff. Residential home that the plaintiff would be home grown and B. As the plaintiff is a resident. The defendant created a high 3-storey concrete buildings and walls along the fence to block the defendant's land area. It does not cause the plaintiff landowner side has been damaged or suffer more than you should think or expect that to be normal.
The Supreme Court 9671 - 9675/2544.
When the defendant's exercise of its home grown close to the public of the plaintiff's property caused the plaintiff can not use or benefit from the public of the City. The plaintiff has been damaged or suffer more than you should think or expect to use the plaintiff's land. Held that the plaintiff has been damaged as a special Case to the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421, and 1337 the defendants planted before the house would not cause the plaintiff who comes later to lose these rights are not. The plaintiff is entitled to have operating losses and damages suffered by the end of the defendants sued to demolish the building construction is the defendant in the land of the Irrigation Department of barriers which the plaintiff in and out to use in the canal Mahasawat. which is public.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1036/2543.
Although the plaintiff is a tenant quarters of a defendant to dispute but the road is a road in front of quarters that a defendant made to the people who bought or leased quarters of the defendant as a thoroughfare through the entry to the public. Dispute and the plaintiff has always been on the road for up to 17-year-old defendant was not a forbidden Even later, the first defendant to sell plaintiff Town of rent to third parties. But plaintiffs are still in the leased quarters to come. The defendant to two wall plaster mask road dispute the Road King that he bought from a defendant to the plaintiff through traffic in and out as you normally would not dispute the plaintiff's rights under Article 55, then the plaintiff Civil Code Procedure has the power to sue the two defendants.
That a defendant agreed with plaintiff and other tenants that will provide a road dispute to high streets, walkways, King forever. Otherwise, the plaintiff and the tenant others would not agree to pay to help the construction and registration of a lease with the defendant at a time up to 20 years, and the defendant, one would not allow the plaintiff and his family and others who live in quarters such as a dispute on the road all the way out as long as 17 years to compile the same even if the lease between the plaintiff and the defendant is not a specific subject matter of the disputed road. But does not appear that the defendant 1 was restricted not to the buyer or tenant quarters of the defendant to a road dispute and accused the two I know already that the defendant at a road construction disputes for the buyer or lessee to compile the use as walkways out into the streets of King. The second defendant to buy some from the road dispute that a defendant and a brick wall blocking the exit road to the settlement at the mouth of King Street. Would indicate that the two defendants exercised bad faith by the parties focus their interests, but one The need to know that damage to those who buy or rent quarters from a defendant who can not use public roads to the disputed issue of King Street was generally happy. Accused 2, it is a violation of the plaintiff, a tenant one.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2299/2541.
Dispute stalls the land of the defendant. The plaintiff purchased commercial waterfront rooms. Side next to the Soi is more expensive than the other room. Is for the purpose of trade is to sell their products on both sides. The defendant building block stalls until the plaintiff can not open the door to the side. Cause of the plaintiff tenant commercial building is not easy to do and that is why the trade. To terminate the lease. Thus the defendant's exercise of his. Cause the plaintiff, owner of commercial buildings have been damaged. Or suffer more than you should think or expect that it is normal and reasonable when taken in the state and Location of the property is ignored. The plaintiff has the operating rights to the damage or harm to the end. And call for compensation from the defendants under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421 and Section 1337.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2296/2541.
Accused building bridges of 1 meter long and 50 meters wide in the Samrong Canal, a canal public In front of the plaintiff's land a distance of approximately 1 to 2 meters in a stable and permanent manner. The plaintiff may be damaged or suffer more than you should think or expect to use the plaintiff's land is way up or way down the canal so that even if the plaintiff does not live and serve in the land, while the defendant building bridges. And the building was made into a canal to the public and public interest matter. The plaintiff would have the right to sue for the demolition of the bridges that pass land to the plaintiff suffered damage or that the end to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1337.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 722/2541.
Accused 1 and 2, collusive as a debtor and creditor to bring a lawsuit to have seized the land under contract to buy and sell auction to prevent the plaintiff forced the case to the defendant, a transfer shall be treated as a willful act to the plaintiff. have been damaged. In addition to the first defendant to the plaintiff's breach of contract then. Also assumes that the defendant 1 and 2, together with a violation of the plaintiff.
Together they made the defendant in violation of the plaintiff. Damages that the plaintiff had received the same amount. Both defendants are standing together to jointly liable for damages to the plaintiff. While the case is under appeal accused the two have agreed to a compromise agreement with the plaintiff. By allowing payments under the Supreme Court of First Instance to the plaintiff of 9,500,000 baht plaintiff accepted and not impressed demand for loans under the sentence of the defendant to two other defendants 2 withdrew the appeal only a part of the defendant, 2 the Court of Appeal allowed as follows: When the defendant second payment for plaintiff and defendant, a number of U.S. 9,500,000 is the number of debt relief under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 292 damages by the defendant to be liable to a plaintiff. Must take the land under an agreement to buy land with the two defendants to pay debts to the plaintiff, then deducted from the price of land at public auction to. Balance is the amount of damages that a defendant would be liable to the plaintiff.
Circumstances under which a defendant is expected to see that if a defendant does not transfer land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall receive damages are not available to buy land to sell. Plaintiff's damages, it is profits from the sale of such land.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 8298/2540.
Pm bridge is a bridge that enabled the construction and for about 50 years, has deteriorated so much damage may occur. Personal injuries and vehicle users to public transportation to the user. Bangkok accused the restoration process. And repair of bridges, the technical basis. To ensure stability. For the benefit vehicle users and the general public to be safe. Considered that the action The defendant's maintenance of bridges, walkways, a land which the powers and duties of the defendant. By the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Act, BE 2528, Section 89 (6) law. Although construction is way up the stairs to the bridge must be changed from the original line is a whole new stretch of the road close Quarters or the last line of the plaintiff's shop. And the bridge to the pier Cover page Shops plaintiff's cause the plaintiff has been damaged, but some even when the actions of the defendant's actions are legal. Certification can be done. The defendant did not willfully or negligently. Action against the plaintiff for the plaintiff has been damaged by illicit Is not a violation.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3815/2540.
Plaintiff's construction in Bangkok which is the capital of the country is crowded with people. Building homes, commercial buildings and other structures, cultivation is a crowded land of plaintiff's home near Ratchadapisek Road to Lat Phrao Road. Is a very mature area. Land availability and less expensive. It must be very high building to use as possible. The construction of the plaintiff in such locations should think or expect that may be of a high building near the house to cover the plaintiff's cause wind direction, light and scenery viewed from the plaintiff's home. Fall normally and reasonably, so even if the defendant is already building a wall without any air vents. But the wind blows and the light still shines through, and home to the plaintiff was reasonable. Coupled with the plaintiff was intended to install air conditioning in the plaintiff's home already. The hot weather in Bangkok For convenience the plaintiff's own products for the construction of the defendant because the air is not hot. Both the defendant building high-Bang Ban plaintiff is to find an exercise that would only cause damage to the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421, not because of section 421 must be the subject of persecution by those who do focus on results. the damage to others Tnriedeiy. If the request was made in the ordinary which of such right. Even those who do will see that other people will receive some damage, it does not violate When the building did not appear that the defendant committed to focusing on libel plaintiff damages to the plaintiff Tnriedeiy. The exercise of the defendant in the construction and building, therefore it is not unlawful under the Section 421 case there is no reason to demolish the building and set the defendant's lack of interest from a functional building to plaintiff.
Co-defendant to a pole using only the earth pin. Sunset when the rain is moving in the plaintiff's house through the gap between the pole into the hole with the defendant at a dig in the soil subsidence caused plaintiff's house to the fence home Stone washed walls and concrete cracking around the home plaintiff. When it appears that the building of the defendant and the plaintiff are either home grown away from the fence line to 2 meters with the first defendant would like to create a protective cover of buildings near to the defendant in plaintiff's home. In order to prevent construction materials, cement, or water drop is home to the plaintiff damages. Without doing advanced into the area of land to the plaintiff. But a co-defendant, it did not find a co-defendant has violated the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3801/2540.
The plaintiff and the defendant is entitled to benefit from mining public body defendant has no right legally to put the slabs and earth to block the channel mouth of the plaintiff. So is a violation of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff used the water from the mine body, as the plaintiff has the right to dispute. And if the average share of water between the plaintiff and the defendant. Will have enough water both sides. The plaintiff of the plaintiff's farm open water during the dry season, less water is not enough to make the field of population But the plaintiff did not draw out the water more than necessary for the benefit of the plaintiff as it should be, which does not comply with the Civil and Commercial Code Section 1355 is not an exercise that would only damage to others. This is an unlawful act under Section 421.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3050/2540.
The verdict of the court that sentenced the plaintiff to pay debts owed money to the defendant until the payment is made. Not sentenced to the plaintiff by the defendant to pay debts amounting to put the court. The court issued the Cmbeongceb the request of the defendant, which is payable under the Supreme Court did not specify the place with money. Case must be governed by the Commercial Code, Section 324 provided for pay at the place where the domicile of the creditors do today. When the sentence that debt is debt owed money. The plaintiff, a debtor must pay money to the defendant, a creditor Domicile of the defendant. Payment of the plaintiff by the defendant under the Supreme Court to put money into court. Therefore not be the case that the defendant had received payment from the plaintiff is correct under the law. And did not inform the plaintiff of payment by bringing money onto the court for the defendant know And does not appear that the defendant was aware that plaintiff has put the money into court to sentence the defendant to pay the debt. The defendant for execution by the plaintiff's share เจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดี taken by means of court enforcement. The court thus exercised by the defendant is located for Enforcement of the sentence. When the defendant does not appear to act in bad faith. Intentionally or negligently so that the plaintiff has been damaged, but any already Accused is not illegal and does not act in violation of the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 624/2544.
M concrete on its allocation of space in front of the building of the plaintiff and the defendant. Include all the land allocated to the front all the way for people to convert to purchase homes for sale using its Moo allocated to high Phaholyothin Road was. The defendant that the defendant's employees and customers who come in contact with the defendant and the potted plants placed on the area to the sidewalk along Phaholyothin Road, causing the plaintiff could not even space to leave temporarily but it is used with the right. However, the damages to the plaintiff, which this one illegal under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421, and also the use of their rights caused the plaintiff has been damaged or suffer more than you should think or expect that will follow. normal and reasonable under Section 1337 with the plaintiff shall have the right to sue for damages or to end suffering is possible.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 877/2546.
Plaintiff to lease land from the municipality to serve as Photharam car park for hotel operations of the plaintiff. The defendant owned three quarters, which are grown on land adjacent to install canopy roof intrusion into the plaintiff's land lease. The plaintiff can not use or benefit from the land with ease. The plaintiff has been damaged or suffer more than you should think or expect to use the land. Although the plaintiff is a lessee of land. But the rent was for the benefit of the plaintiff in the hotel business. When the plaintiff is the owner of hotel properties which have suffered especially annoyed by the action of the three defendants. It shall have power to sue to eliminate the suffering that the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421 and Section 1337, although the defendant three to install roof quarters before the plaintiff will lease the land they find a cause plaintiff to lose these rights away. not The plaintiff is entitled to have operating losses and damages suffered by the end of the three defendants to sue to demolish the roof to fill out the quarters, which deter the use of rented land, the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court 7168 - 7172/2545.
Plaintiff to the defendant created a nuisance. When the defendant notice and forbid. The plaintiff did not obey. Defendant would prefer to eliminate the exercise of judicial involvement Find the right to block a fence to block the wind shall blow and the light shines in through the door and windows of the plaintiff quarters.
The defendant is a plaintiff's Town by Town walls behind doors and windows adjacent to the defendant's land area. Despite the ordinance, it is wrong that local officials must be made to the plaintiff. Because the defendant has no right to claim the construction of block wall fence, rear quarters of the plaintiff. As a reason to block the wind and light to pass out the back quarters of the plaintiff by the plaintiff does not agree with. And even though the defendant to be constructed in the land of the defendant is an exercise that would only damage the plaintiff. Thus a violation of the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1820/2545.
The second defendant to the steel and iron gates to block it because a third party to use the entrance to the dormitory. In order to protect the property of people living in the hostel is right is the nature of land ownership to protect security of people living in the land of the defendant to two phones is not that an exercise that would only. damage to the plaintiff's own people and commerce can be business as usual in front of stores. Which could be easily reduced to some But it also holds that the defendant did not exercise their second cause plaintiff whose property has been damaged. Or suffer more than you should think or expect that it is normal and reasonable when taken in the state and location of the property is ignored by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1337.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 3801/2540.
The plaintiff and the defendant is entitled to benefit from mining public body defendant has no right legally to put the slabs and earth to block the channel mouth of the plaintiff. So is a violation of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff used the water from the mine body, as the plaintiff has the right to dispute. And if the average share of water between the plaintiff and the defendant. Will have enough water both sides. The plaintiff of the plaintiff's farm open water during the dry season, less water is not enough to make the field of population But the plaintiff did not draw out the water more than necessary for the benefit of the plaintiff as it should be, which does not comply with the Civil and Commercial Code Section 1355 is not an exercise that would only damage to others. This is an unlawful act under Section 421.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1992/2538.
Plaintiff rent roof installed to compile the advertising products of the plaintiff the defendant is the lessee of the adjacent quarters and installed the defendant's advertising cover advertising on the plaintiff as the plaintiff's use of the Town has hired the defendant would have. installed in the advertising business of the defendant as well, regardless of whether the defendant after the plaintiff to install advertising signs or advertising, because the installation of both the plaintiff and the defendant are also installed on the roof of the quarters, where each party Rentals can be considered to serve both the plaintiff and the defendant took advantage of the leased quarters of the land rights of the lease, each party has under the law when the defendant does not appear to install the signs to deliberately libel the plaintiff by the purpose. damage to the plaintiff to install advertising signs are perpetrated by the defendant's illegal even to conceal the plaintiff's product advertising is to find a violation of the plaintiff by the exercise of which would only give damages to the plaintiff. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421 does not.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 220/2538.
Although the plaintiff guilty Building Construction Building Control Act and the ordinance, it is the local official will need to deal with the plaintiff claimed the defendant has no right to cause the construction of sheet steel and cause the block sunlight and wind to enter buildings. And even though the defendant to the plaintiff's construction in the land of the defendant is an exercise that would only damage to other persons is a violation under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1590/2521.
Defendant filed for divorce with her husband by constantly attributed to her husband to another woman is the plaintiff and her husband went to living openly with the plaintiff as an exercise of the court. The defendant is required to be stated in the charges filed by the husband and the defendant clearly understood. Can be considered as a message in the court hearing of the parties for the benefit of their cases. Defamation is not a malfunction. And does not appear that the defendant act in bad faith. Therefore it is not that right, which would only damage to others. Accused is not in violation of the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1971/2517.
The plaintiff accused the customs union. And agreed that If the defendant graduated marriage with the defendant to the plaintiff. But when the defendant graduated. Defendant refused to register the marriage with the plaintiff. The plaintiff to lose a young and living with my husband and his wife, defendant Together without marriage. Caused the plaintiff's voluntary. Not caused by the defendant violated. The defendant refused to register a marriage with the plaintiff. It is not a violation of the plaintiff. Or an exercise that would only damage the plaintiff. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 420,421 does not require the defendant to the plaintiff claims.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1069/2509.
Car dispute that the plaintiff accused the car together to buy the car of the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant or the plaintiff and the defendant is a similar dispute with the owner as well. The exercise of any. The defendant's car. Must not be an exercise that would only damage to the plaintiff or the right does not violate the rights of plaintiffs under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 421, and 1360 the defendant took car disputes to go offshore exploits the car deteriorated wear. Damage to the plaintiff that the defendant has the right to use, but may cause damage to the plaintiff and against the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant's actions are a violation of the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 949/2527.
The defendant added the text on the box drug labeling and printed using advertisements drugs that the defendant manufacturer, sold under the trademark of the accused that 'genuine' good 'Store the old' good and 'careful drug mimics' good is exercised by justified by the violation of the plaintiff, but not any part of the plaintiff's representative was told to pharmacies as well as customers of the defendant that the defendant is a counterfeit drug sales will not be sold if the base was caught selling counterfeit drugs. If the defendant loses the case and have had no right to sell drugs manufactured, sold under the trademark of the defendant customers refused to buy more drugs, the defendant purchased and then refused to pay the price. Or wait for cases to be completed before the settlement.
