Section 340 if the debtor, creditors expressed their intention to be forgiven for You that the debt was to be extinguished if the debt is the end of the book as evidence. And forgiven, it must be made in writing by Or to surrender a document which is evidence of the debt to debtors. Or delete the document is lost.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2111/2551.
Creditor and the debtor has entered into two secured debts of a debtor by T. confess to a joint debtor. Creditors and debtors, who secured second with the same debt shall be liable as joint debtors under the Commercial Code, Section 682, paragraph two, when the provisions are not in any way guarantee the liabilities of a guarantor to each other. It therefore requires a general rule under Section 229 and Section 296 of the T. accepting payments from two accounts amounting to $ 500,000 and forgiven by the debtor to withdraw filed only two would be useful to the extent the debtor's creditors. 2, which was released to only The second refers to the child shall not be liable T. longer because the remaining debt for the debtor to hold the 2 and then Section 340, so if the debt to the creditor T. just do not use it. take recourse to the two accounts longer so creditors can not obtain payment from the debtor's property Division 2, has.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2659/2546.
According to the Civil and Commercial debt suspension to end when the debtor has forgiven the debt set-off. The new debt. Or the Debt normally mingle. Who died a loan agreement with the defendant, who died a second time by payment to the plaintiff is not required. And does not appear to cause something else to make loans in the suspension. Debt that the deceased would be liable to the plaintiff is not compulsory. Mortgage debt, the device still does not hold to the end.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 8232/2544.
Court clearly stated that the three defendants jointly to pay debts to the plaintiff. If no settlement be based on land mortgages property of the defendant to three auction proceeds to debt repayment. When the defendant. 3 the money paid for redemption of mortgage debt to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to accept payment. Therefore according to the first sentence in the case, then no need to mortgage the land property of the defendant, 3 the market for sale.
The plaintiff the debt and redeem the mortgaged land to the defendant. 3 would make the debt of the three defendants to pay the mortgage debt redeemed terminated as of the settlement, which affects the defendant, 1 and 2, a joint debtor with the sentence. When the facts did not appear that the plaintiff has agreed to forgiven debts of three defendants accused is not suspended three remaining debt to another number. All three defendants remain liable jointly by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 291, so the plaintiff is entitled to hold land dispute Enforcement Officer of the defendant. 2 auction proceeds to the repayment of the sentence to the second defendant has no right to ask the court to revoke the seizure of land disputes, the defendant has the second.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2551/2544.
Sat defendant and entered into a loan guarantee company limited by Road confess to the plaintiff and defendant as joint debtors Sat mortgaged property as security against the defendant sold the mortgaged property as collateral to the debt and S. the payment to the plaintiff of which the plaintiff had issued to S. forgiven and the defendant, a co-guarantor on the same debt shall be liable as a joint debtor. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 682, paragraph two, when the provisions are not guaranteed in any way the responsibility to set aside the guarantor. Must use the general principles under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 229 and 296 of the plaintiff shall be forfeited to the S. The rest of the debt for Sat suspended by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 340 and would result in liability for the defendant. which is guaranteed to hold together with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 293.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 6829/2543.
S. Even with the defendant and other guarantors are jointly guarantee the debt reduction agreement to sell its Road checks with each other and the plaintiff will receive payment from the S. part, even forgiven by the plaintiff withdrew the action Sat. such civil. The plaintiff has the debt under the Supreme Court Case No. 23817/2532 red under the judge not to leave Sat become a debtor under the Supreme Court with The defendant filed a bankruptcy case to S. therefore not a joint debtors in the debt that the plaintiff and the defendant be sued. Although the plaintiff to be forgiven, it is not the case that the plaintiff Sat forgiven for accounts with the defendant the Commercial Code, Section 340 and Section 293.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 625/2542.
When the plaintiff and the guarantee Sat share of L in the amount of 1,000,000 baht and liabilities of the plaintiff. S. limited to small times the amount with interest at the rate l be held liable for the defendant company. But not exceeding the rate at which the defendant has the right to think according to the law of the repayment agreement Sat guarantee the defendant and the defendant forgiven for 1,800,000 baht on Sat April 18, 2533 the plaintiff as a debtor with a benefit with the Sat. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 292, paragraph one, 293, even 11 years later, another 2 months and 23 days, the plaintiff sued the defendant is insolvent. But the limit on the plaintiff to the defendant was liable for only a limited guarantee of one million U.S. contract with both. Sat any payment to the defendant under a guarantee agreement to 1,800,000 baht, and even then the plaintiff will be liable under the mortgage insurance companies l debt of another 200,000 plus interest in the amount of any outstanding debt with the plaintiff when the defendant liable as well. principal and interest then there is no way up. 15,332,017.82 Baht description of the defendant that the plaintiff sued in bankruptcy cases, defendants are liable with the Corporation plc. 15,015,517.82 Baht another without describing the amount the plaintiff is liable under the contract that guarantees both. Appointee to the testimony of the defendant in the Los Angeles class. The plaintiff must be jointly liable with L until a lawsuit money. 15,332,071.82 U.S. District Court receivership until the final plaintiff, and sentenced to bankrupt the plaintiff has been damaged. Perpetrated by negligence in calculating the outstanding amount of the plaintiff. And an exercise in bad faith.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4123/2540.
Even those guaranteed contracts will be surrendered guarantee agreement, a document of debt to a presumption under the third paragraph of the Commercial Code, Section 327 debt to be extinguished despite the end. But this presumption is not absolute presupposition. When contractors do not pay the debt contract to the plaintiff. The debt does not appear that the reason to hold otherwise. And if not required by the provisions of the law on the suspension of guarantees by the end of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 698 to 701 plaintiffs also claim that the guarantee liability under the guarantee agreement has any. If the bank return the securities to be placed as security contractors. Due to the Contractor to guarantee the return bank has the right to deny liability under the guarantees, especially case officers and employees of the plaintiff is the defendant and three nights guarantees to Contractor to own hard plaintiff to bank guarantee liability. held that the plaintiff has been damaged, then it must have all three defendants liable under a contract with the contractor.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2432/2540.
Statement of the plaintiff to withdraw the seizure and execution, labeled "The plaintiff and the defendant agreed, and to receive payment is satisfied, the plaintiff did not request execution continued hereby withdraw the confiscation case and withdraw enforcement wastes were to go by, etc. "Such statements are clear that the plaintiff withdrew the confiscation and enforcement because it is paid back from the two defendants is satisfied by the plaintiff and defendant both have agreed. as follows: When the plaintiff agreed lift or forgiven the remainder to the defendant debt the rest of it shall be suspended for the following under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 340 plaintiff may not bring such debt as a plaintiff to the defendant, both as a bankrupt has.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7717/2538.
Record f the defendant accepted. An alien domiciled abroad to the Kingdom to the competent official immigration. Bangkok plaintiff. However, when mature f defendant did manage to send. Departure from the Kingdom of Thailand claimed to remember appointments wrong Plaintiff's lack of investigation that the defendant intended to breach of the Conditions of Certification. Request a waiver of the defendant made a fine save by the plaintiff certification. Commander of the Immigration Division, the top commander of the plaintiff. Have approved waiver orders suspension of fine the defendant. Command, which is a direct authority of the plaintiff because the plaintiff and unlawful action by the authority as a party defendant to the Police Department is not party to the defendant does not need to be approved by the Director General of Police. Treated the plaintiff has shown that the defendant intentionally forgiven the debt and Commercial Code, Section 340, then the penalty is suspended under the following conditions.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 965/2537.
The defendant, 3 had received a letter of guarantee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, a defendant on three insurance to the plaintiff that night because the defendants 1 and 2, using deceit is not it that the plaintiff forgiven guaranteed to the defendant. at 3 with the surrender document which evidences of debt under Commercial Code Section 340.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 414/2536.
Plaintiff's back guarantee of the defendant No. 5 to 3 includes a defendant by the defendant to two recipients with a misunderstanding of the plaintiff's employees. The plaintiff has no intention would forgiven for all three defendants, even defendants will be surrendered 3 guarantees that a document which is evidence of the debt to a presumption that the Commercial Code, Section 327 paragraph three shall be the debt. Then hold the end of the matter. But this presumption is not absolute presupposition. When the facts show that defendant. Has not paid a debt that is guaranteed three defendants to the plaintiff. Debt and the claim was extinguished by reason otherwise is not the defendant, one must still pay debt, the plaintiff accused the three are not free from liability in such debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 698 defendants 3 to claim fees. practices of banks that once the defendant has been surrendered three original letters of guarantee from the defendant. 2 who was a customer in good faith. Although expropriation is not payable from the plaintiff, who was also accused the three liberation from liability as guarantor, and then find it does not. Because if not by the provisions of the law to end the suspension of the guarantees provided by the Commercial Code and Section 698 to Section 701 of the three defendants claim that can not take recourse to the defendant. For the first insurance has returned to a defendant who initiated the termination of such guarantee. Because of gross negligence of the plaintiff, would be the need to admonish the defendant to three separate parties to find relief was associated with the liability of a third defendant, as the guarantor is not in any way.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1841/2524.
On December 19, 2519 defendant, an issue checks without a date and then sold to the plaintiff by requesting that time for three years to provide plaintiffs the check to cash the meantime, the defendant, an interest payment to the plaintiff all the time until October. 2520 is off to pay the plaintiff is dated November 30, 2520 on the check and kept waiting for it until three years to bring checks to the bill on January 3, 2521 the plaintiff dated 30 November 2520 on the check is perpetrated by good faith agreement. And that is the case, the defendant. Failed to pay a debt contracted by reducing check Not terminate the plaintiff's case.
Plaintiff filed notice of withdrawal lawsuit that accused the five deceased and the plaintiff has lost only withdraw filed by the defendant as follows: 5 Yes, it expressed a desire not forgiven the defendant, 5.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 635/2522.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for payment of the four defendants checks. 1 and is payable to the defendant, 2,3,4 a defendant to an endorsement of the receivership is strictly prohibited. District Court to sell the case only defendant to a free and allow the plaintiff to withdraw action defendants 2, 3, and then sentenced the defendant to four payment amount on the check case is the following, even following the meeting, creditors have approved a special request for debt restructuring of the defendant. at 1, for only 10 percent debt and the court agreed with defendants and 4, it will ask the court for an order that the plaintiff is entitled to receive payment from the defendant, 4 only 10 percent of the sentence not because of the associated Wed. . B. Section 56, the creditors' meeting to restructure the court accepted and approved by then. Binding on all creditors. Debt may request payment from the debtor in bankruptcy cases only. Not bind to other creditors of the debtor and in other cases. And the creditor must be bound by the terms of the compromise is not forgiven under Section 340 of the Commercial Code, because the plaintiff did not show an intent on the defendant to be forgiven for
Judgement of the Supreme Court 802/2519.
Plaintiff mortgaged property to the company the defendant as collateral for a debt amount not exceeding 40,000 baht, then the plaintiff is a debt premium company accused 99,853.90 U.S. before its defendant will be filing bankruptcy just four days the plaintiff was paid 50,000 baht to the company defendants. The defendant allowed the company to reduce debt 49,853.90 baht and a letter that will release the mortgage. The defendants accept that the company forgiven of 49,853.90 baht and the release of mortgage to the plaintiff. The defendant company is committed against the plaintiff as the plaintiff is the debtor. Not as a creditor. Case is not eligible to Official receivership of the defendant to withdraw a request. Bankruptcy Act, Section 115, but the defendant shows that the company intended to release the mortgage and forgiven, a high number of the plaintiff in vain The company has accused the debt situations. Shall see that the company has done to the defendant despite unilateral. To know that a disadvantage of the creditors. Official receivership has the power to revoke the act I have forgiven the Act includes Section 113 Commercial Code, Section 237 plaintiffs are still bound to pay the debts of this Division, property of the defendant a bankrupt company.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2111/2551.
Creditor and the debtor has entered into two secured debts of a debtor by T. confess to a joint debtor. Creditors and debtors, who secured second with the same debt shall be liable as joint debtors under the Commercial Code, Section 682, paragraph two, when the provisions are not in any way guarantee the liabilities of a guarantor to each other. It therefore requires a general rule under Section 229 and Section 296 of the T. accepting payments from two accounts amounting to $ 500,000 and forgiven by the debtor to withdraw filed only two would be useful to the extent the debtor's creditors. 2, which was released to only The second refers to the child shall not be liable T. longer because the remaining debt for the debtor to hold the 2 and then Section 340, so if the debt to the creditor T. just do not use it. take recourse to the two accounts longer so creditors can not obtain payment from the debtor's property Division 2, has.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2659/2546.
According to the Civil and Commercial debt suspension to end when the debtor has forgiven the debt set-off. The new debt. Or the Debt normally mingle. Who died a loan agreement with the defendant, who died a second time by payment to the plaintiff is not required. And does not appear to cause something else to make loans in the suspension. Debt that the deceased would be liable to the plaintiff is not compulsory. Mortgage debt, the device still does not hold to the end.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 8232/2544.
Court clearly stated that the three defendants jointly to pay debts to the plaintiff. If no settlement be based on land mortgages property of the defendant to three auction proceeds to debt repayment. When the defendant. 3 the money paid for redemption of mortgage debt to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to accept payment. Therefore according to the first sentence in the case, then no need to mortgage the land property of the defendant, 3 the market for sale.
The plaintiff the debt and redeem the mortgaged land to the defendant. 3 would make the debt of the three defendants to pay the mortgage debt redeemed terminated as of the settlement, which affects the defendant, 1 and 2, a joint debtor with the sentence. When the facts did not appear that the plaintiff has agreed to forgiven debts of three defendants accused is not suspended three remaining debt to another number. All three defendants remain liable jointly by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 291, so the plaintiff is entitled to hold land dispute Enforcement Officer of the defendant. 2 auction proceeds to the repayment of the sentence to the second defendant has no right to ask the court to revoke the seizure of land disputes, the defendant has the second.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2551/2544.
Sat defendant and entered into a loan guarantee company limited by Road confess to the plaintiff and defendant as joint debtors Sat mortgaged property as security against the defendant sold the mortgaged property as collateral to the debt and S. the payment to the plaintiff of which the plaintiff had issued to S. forgiven and the defendant, a co-guarantor on the same debt shall be liable as a joint debtor. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 682, paragraph two, when the provisions are not guaranteed in any way the responsibility to set aside the guarantor. Must use the general principles under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 229 and 296 of the plaintiff shall be forfeited to the S. The rest of the debt for Sat suspended by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 340 and would result in liability for the defendant. which is guaranteed to hold together with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 293.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 6829/2543.
S. Even with the defendant and other guarantors are jointly guarantee the debt reduction agreement to sell its Road checks with each other and the plaintiff will receive payment from the S. part, even forgiven by the plaintiff withdrew the action Sat. such civil. The plaintiff has the debt under the Supreme Court Case No. 23817/2532 red under the judge not to leave Sat become a debtor under the Supreme Court with The defendant filed a bankruptcy case to S. therefore not a joint debtors in the debt that the plaintiff and the defendant be sued. Although the plaintiff to be forgiven, it is not the case that the plaintiff Sat forgiven for accounts with the defendant the Commercial Code, Section 340 and Section 293.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 625/2542.
When the plaintiff and the guarantee Sat share of L in the amount of 1,000,000 baht and liabilities of the plaintiff. S. limited to small times the amount with interest at the rate l be held liable for the defendant company. But not exceeding the rate at which the defendant has the right to think according to the law of the repayment agreement Sat guarantee the defendant and the defendant forgiven for 1,800,000 baht on Sat April 18, 2533 the plaintiff as a debtor with a benefit with the Sat. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 292, paragraph one, 293, even 11 years later, another 2 months and 23 days, the plaintiff sued the defendant is insolvent. But the limit on the plaintiff to the defendant was liable for only a limited guarantee of one million U.S. contract with both. Sat any payment to the defendant under a guarantee agreement to 1,800,000 baht, and even then the plaintiff will be liable under the mortgage insurance companies l debt of another 200,000 plus interest in the amount of any outstanding debt with the plaintiff when the defendant liable as well. principal and interest then there is no way up. 15,332,017.82 Baht description of the defendant that the plaintiff sued in bankruptcy cases, defendants are liable with the Corporation plc. 15,015,517.82 Baht another without describing the amount the plaintiff is liable under the contract that guarantees both. Appointee to the testimony of the defendant in the Los Angeles class. The plaintiff must be jointly liable with L until a lawsuit money. 15,332,071.82 U.S. District Court receivership until the final plaintiff, and sentenced to bankrupt the plaintiff has been damaged. Perpetrated by negligence in calculating the outstanding amount of the plaintiff. And an exercise in bad faith.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4123/2540.
Even those guaranteed contracts will be surrendered guarantee agreement, a document of debt to a presumption under the third paragraph of the Commercial Code, Section 327 debt to be extinguished despite the end. But this presumption is not absolute presupposition. When contractors do not pay the debt contract to the plaintiff. The debt does not appear that the reason to hold otherwise. And if not required by the provisions of the law on the suspension of guarantees by the end of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 698 to 701 plaintiffs also claim that the guarantee liability under the guarantee agreement has any. If the bank return the securities to be placed as security contractors. Due to the Contractor to guarantee the return bank has the right to deny liability under the guarantees, especially case officers and employees of the plaintiff is the defendant and three nights guarantees to Contractor to own hard plaintiff to bank guarantee liability. held that the plaintiff has been damaged, then it must have all three defendants liable under a contract with the contractor.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2432/2540.
Statement of the plaintiff to withdraw the seizure and execution, labeled "The plaintiff and the defendant agreed, and to receive payment is satisfied, the plaintiff did not request execution continued hereby withdraw the confiscation case and withdraw enforcement wastes were to go by, etc. "Such statements are clear that the plaintiff withdrew the confiscation and enforcement because it is paid back from the two defendants is satisfied by the plaintiff and defendant both have agreed. as follows: When the plaintiff agreed lift or forgiven the remainder to the defendant debt the rest of it shall be suspended for the following under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 340 plaintiff may not bring such debt as a plaintiff to the defendant, both as a bankrupt has.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 7717/2538.
Record f the defendant accepted. An alien domiciled abroad to the Kingdom to the competent official immigration. Bangkok plaintiff. However, when mature f defendant did manage to send. Departure from the Kingdom of Thailand claimed to remember appointments wrong Plaintiff's lack of investigation that the defendant intended to breach of the Conditions of Certification. Request a waiver of the defendant made a fine save by the plaintiff certification. Commander of the Immigration Division, the top commander of the plaintiff. Have approved waiver orders suspension of fine the defendant. Command, which is a direct authority of the plaintiff because the plaintiff and unlawful action by the authority as a party defendant to the Police Department is not party to the defendant does not need to be approved by the Director General of Police. Treated the plaintiff has shown that the defendant intentionally forgiven the debt and Commercial Code, Section 340, then the penalty is suspended under the following conditions.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 965/2537.
The defendant, 3 had received a letter of guarantee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, a defendant on three insurance to the plaintiff that night because the defendants 1 and 2, using deceit is not it that the plaintiff forgiven guaranteed to the defendant. at 3 with the surrender document which evidences of debt under Commercial Code Section 340.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 414/2536.
Plaintiff's back guarantee of the defendant No. 5 to 3 includes a defendant by the defendant to two recipients with a misunderstanding of the plaintiff's employees. The plaintiff has no intention would forgiven for all three defendants, even defendants will be surrendered 3 guarantees that a document which is evidence of the debt to a presumption that the Commercial Code, Section 327 paragraph three shall be the debt. Then hold the end of the matter. But this presumption is not absolute presupposition. When the facts show that defendant. Has not paid a debt that is guaranteed three defendants to the plaintiff. Debt and the claim was extinguished by reason otherwise is not the defendant, one must still pay debt, the plaintiff accused the three are not free from liability in such debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 698 defendants 3 to claim fees. practices of banks that once the defendant has been surrendered three original letters of guarantee from the defendant. 2 who was a customer in good faith. Although expropriation is not payable from the plaintiff, who was also accused the three liberation from liability as guarantor, and then find it does not. Because if not by the provisions of the law to end the suspension of the guarantees provided by the Commercial Code and Section 698 to Section 701 of the three defendants claim that can not take recourse to the defendant. For the first insurance has returned to a defendant who initiated the termination of such guarantee. Because of gross negligence of the plaintiff, would be the need to admonish the defendant to three separate parties to find relief was associated with the liability of a third defendant, as the guarantor is not in any way.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1841/2524.
On December 19, 2519 defendant, an issue checks without a date and then sold to the plaintiff by requesting that time for three years to provide plaintiffs the check to cash the meantime, the defendant, an interest payment to the plaintiff all the time until October. 2520 is off to pay the plaintiff is dated November 30, 2520 on the check and kept waiting for it until three years to bring checks to the bill on January 3, 2521 the plaintiff dated 30 November 2520 on the check is perpetrated by good faith agreement. And that is the case, the defendant. Failed to pay a debt contracted by reducing check Not terminate the plaintiff's case.
Plaintiff filed notice of withdrawal lawsuit that accused the five deceased and the plaintiff has lost only withdraw filed by the defendant as follows: 5 Yes, it expressed a desire not forgiven the defendant, 5.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 635/2522.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for payment of the four defendants checks. 1 and is payable to the defendant, 2,3,4 a defendant to an endorsement of the receivership is strictly prohibited. District Court to sell the case only defendant to a free and allow the plaintiff to withdraw action defendants 2, 3, and then sentenced the defendant to four payment amount on the check case is the following, even following the meeting, creditors have approved a special request for debt restructuring of the defendant. at 1, for only 10 percent debt and the court agreed with defendants and 4, it will ask the court for an order that the plaintiff is entitled to receive payment from the defendant, 4 only 10 percent of the sentence not because of the associated Wed. . B. Section 56, the creditors' meeting to restructure the court accepted and approved by then. Binding on all creditors. Debt may request payment from the debtor in bankruptcy cases only. Not bind to other creditors of the debtor and in other cases. And the creditor must be bound by the terms of the compromise is not forgiven under Section 340 of the Commercial Code, because the plaintiff did not show an intent on the defendant to be forgiven for
Judgement of the Supreme Court 802/2519.
Plaintiff mortgaged property to the company the defendant as collateral for a debt amount not exceeding 40,000 baht, then the plaintiff is a debt premium company accused 99,853.90 U.S. before its defendant will be filing bankruptcy just four days the plaintiff was paid 50,000 baht to the company defendants. The defendant allowed the company to reduce debt 49,853.90 baht and a letter that will release the mortgage. The defendants accept that the company forgiven of 49,853.90 baht and the release of mortgage to the plaintiff. The defendant company is committed against the plaintiff as the plaintiff is the debtor. Not as a creditor. Case is not eligible to Official receivership of the defendant to withdraw a request. Bankruptcy Act, Section 115, but the defendant shows that the company intended to release the mortgage and forgiven, a high number of the plaintiff in vain The company has accused the debt situations. Shall see that the company has done to the defendant despite unilateral. To know that a disadvantage of the creditors. Official receivership has the power to revoke the act I have forgiven the Act includes Section 113 Commercial Code, Section 237 plaintiffs are still bound to pay the debts of this Division, property of the defendant a bankrupt company.
