Section 693 loan guarantee, which was then. Shall have the right to take recourse to the principal and interest of the debtor and to the loss or damage to any guarantees because of the addition, the guarantor shall receive the rights of creditors over debtors, those with
In addition, Section 694, which guarantees the lender against it. You may also set up a defense that the guarantor of their debts with creditors, which is up against it.
Section 695 which is the guarantor of the debtor fails to raise a defense up against that creditor, you have the right to take recourse to the extent that the debtor did not raise as a defense. Unless he proves that he did not know that such a defense. And that is because it is not their fault.
Section 696 does not guarantee the right to take recourse to the debtor. If they can not tell the debtor to pay debts. To repay their debts, and yet again.
In this case. Guarantor, but only to sue the creditor to recover only Lapmicwradg.
Section 697 if they made one of his creditors. As a result, the guarantor may not subcontract all or part of it right from the pledge, mortgage, and I preferred to be provided to creditors, but before or on the agreement to repay the debt. You will recall that the guarantor from liability to the extent that they need because of the damage.
Supreme Court to 791/2553.
The defendant is a corporation of a debt. The plaintiff accused the defendant of a second as the guarantor and the third to land in the amount of U.S. $ 4 million to secure the debt. The agreement at the end of the mortgage contract. If the mortgage has not enough money to pay the defendants 1 and 3, the part of the debt in full. This liability of the plaintiff, defendant, 2 and 3, with the corporation. Is in a position to repay loans, according to their position. The liability limits are set by the three defendants is liable as a mortgage, which sets a limit of liability. The plaintiff has the obligation to repay the corporation. To the plaintiff would inherit the rights of corporations. That the defendant took recourse to a loan that is primary to the full amount. However, the relationship between plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and No. 3 on the third defendant in the amount of mortgage loan insurance for U.S. $ 4 million, plus interest and the corporation. Sued the mortgage until the court ruling to enforce the mortgage. And the defendant an obligation of the corporation. Are more likely than the mortgage amount as a liability on the defendants three corporations and their connection. And the burden is liable to the corporation. The amount of the mortgage. However, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the defendant pay the plaintiff the amount of three corporations to escape liability. Or any less than the amount that each person is bound. Plaintiff to take recourse in respect of joint accounts, which will cause Damage to the corporation. The initial creditor in accordance with Section 230, paragraph two, the plaintiff can not take recourse to remove any third defendant also can not be determined exactly. The plaintiff does not have a debt in this bankruptcy case was filed for the three defendants.
Supreme Court in 2111/2551.
Creditor and the debtor, the second Sun. Co-borrower's first loan agreement with the plaintiff and the debtor is liable in accordance with Section 291 and Section 682 paragraph two, if the creditor payment to the plaintiff. Creditor shall have the right to recourse to remove receivables from the one which is due to begin in accordance with Section 693 paragraph one and the rights of the plaintiff's recourse is to the debtor, 2 which are secured together by equal parts of Section 229 (. 3) and section 296 by Debtors 1 and 2, the court shall order the court of any creditor is entitled to apply for payment for the amount they can take recourse to the accounts 1 and 2 in the future as well as a number or as the case may be. Unless the plaintiff has the right to receive payment in full of the debtor 1 or 2, according to the Bankruptcy Act 2483 Section 101, when the Sun is the assignee of the claims of the plaintiff. applying for an initial payment of the debt to the debtor and filed an application for repayment of debt secured against the debtor, the second will have the full amount. Creditor shall have the right to obtain payment for the amount they can take recourse against the debtor, the second time in the future.
Creditors and debtors of the debtor's debts are secured two contracts by agreeing to a loan against the T. Co. Creditors and debtors to 2, which is the guarantor of the debt the same as the debtor would be liable under the provisions of Section 682, paragraph two, when the guarantee does not limit the liability of the guarantor must be the same. The general principles of Section 229 and Section 296 of the T. accepting payment from the debtor, the second is $ 500,000 and a debt to the withdrawals against the debtor that is second only to the extent of the benefit of creditors, the debtor 2. release only. The north section 2, shall not be liable for T. anymore because the remaining debt for the debtor to the second suspension under Section 340 if the loan is payable only to a T. Which is not to be used. took recourse to the debtor, creditors can no longer two, therefore, may not receive payment from the debtor's assets 2.
Supreme Court in 1876/2551.
Entered into overdraft and loan agreements with banks, creditors, the amount of U.S. $ 4,000,000 plus interest by the plaintiff, defendant, 2 and 3, with another six people as a guarantor of the loan limits vary by the wrong as I joined up. . Wed, Section 682, paragraph two, when the plaintiff pay the defendant an amount of 4.88 million baht to the bank. Plaintiffs shall have recourse defendant No. 1 and get the right bank of recourse the guarantor and the proportion of the guarantors, each bound obligations under Section 693 and Section 229 (3), 296, the Court is ruling in a civil case. The defendant, 2 and 3, with the first defendant pay the plaintiff the amount of U.S. $ 3,020,952.37 plus interest. It does not specify the proportion of the liability of the defendant and the plaintiff has brought three with debt such as a bankruptcy filing that three defendants. The Civil Court issued an order to amend the error, or error lost the case, as already mentioned by the defendant, 2 and 3, together with the fact that a payment of principal and interest to the plaintiff by the defendant, 2 and 3. the agreement. Despite the amendment of the Civil Court in the proceedings, the defendants raised three new claims in this appeal. But the bankruptcy law relating to public order and according Section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act, the court must consider the fact that under Section 9 or Section 10 of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the testimony of such documents. The fact received that the defendant No. 3 is jointly liable with the defendant, the second portion of the agreement in the amount of just $ 500,000 and outstanding determined to prosecute this to 1,000,000 baht against the plaintiff does not like. The Bankruptcy Act and Section 9 (2).
Supreme Court in 8328/2550.
Section 90/60 of the Bankruptcy Act 2483 in accordance with the second paragraph of the order of the debtor's reorganization plan does not change the liability of a person who is a partner with the debtor or the debtor or guarantor is liable to apply for restoration. It is the company's contract to export sales of promissory notes to the plaintiff. Even later, the Court has ordered the reorganization of the company said it did not affect the liability of the defendant as a guarantor. The plaintiff does not sell debt under the promissory notes issued to shipping companies to apply for I can not make debt payments on hold. The defendant is not released from liability under the guarantee agreement. This may not be a case under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 697.
Supreme Court in 5369/2549.
Defendant a loan of B. The plaintiff accused the defendants 3 and 4 is the guarantor of 3 and 4, has promised that the plaintiff. B. If the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant, a defendant, 3 and 4 is payable to the plaintiff by the debtor's wrong. The defendant appeared in 3 and 4, the plaintiff contracted it. Debt contract guarantees that the plaintiff may be called for repayment B has occurred, but B must be guaranteed by the terms of the contract. The plaintiff, who may take recourse of the accused 3 and 4, the contract will be payable in the future. When the court receivership of the defendant at the 3 and 4, any plaintiff must file an application for payment for the amount that the plaintiff may take recourse in the future of the assets of the defendants 3 and 4, within two months. Advertising on the court of any Insolvency Act 2483, Section 27, 91, 94 and 101 baht, but has filed an application for repayment in case the court shall order the defendant to court 3. and at 4, then the plaintiff has filed an application for final payment is not prohibited by Section 101, paragraph one end. But the plaintiff's debt to B after a court ordered receivership of the defendant at the 3 and 4, the final result for the plaintiff to be entitled to claim the baht to enforce against the assets of the defendant.Another case, one can not.
Supreme Court to 10700/2546.
The plaintiff, who then secured debt. Shall have the right to take recourse of the defendant. 2, which is due to the payment of interest and to be lost or damaged in any way. As a guarantor under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 693, paragraph one, even in the second paragraph states that Guarantee the rights of creditors who have been with over the debtor. And the guarantee contract provided the guarantor is entitled to the rights of the owners are not required by law or contract to contract. It means only that the guarantor of the rights of those who prefer to use existing debt creditors. The debt insurance is only in its own name pursuant to Section 226, the plaintiff admitted the defendant's rights. A finding that the plaintiff is entitled to a motorcycle that had the second installment of the defendant at first, because motorcycles have become the property of the defendant, the second since the plaintiff has paid the lease for the defendant to two to complete by operation of Section 572 plaintiff may not. the defendant's right to terminate a lease agreement with no right to sue the two defendants accused of forcing a defendant to register the ownership of motorcycles and motorcycle 2 delivery to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 4356/2545.
In Civil and Commercial Code Section 1754, which stipulates that the first paragraph under Section 193/27 of the meaning of Section 1754 shall not affect the rights of creditors under Section 193/27 of the right to force creditors. even debt repayment will then terminate the matter. That Section 1754 shall not apply to creditors. Does not apply to the plaintiff, an ordinary creditor.
The second defendant is a guarantor to recognize, even if the debtor's The inheritance. It does not make a loan to a sample due to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 291, however, recognize that the debtor's Section 691, which would be just right can not raise a defense under Section 688,689 and 690 up against the creditor, so the defendant 2. are eligible under Section 694 to set up their fight. This is due to the plaintiff Ehgamrdk is payable by the defendant up against the two are not the heirs of the debtor The inheritance.
Agreement guarantees that. The borrower fails to pay principal and interest to the lender under the contract. Borrower's death or debt settlement is one reason why. Guarantee an acceptable substitute for total debt. But the guarantor will be liable for the debt even if the borrower died or lapsed or the borrower fails to pay the debt only. It does not include a waiver of prescription up against them. The guarantor has the right prescription to combat inherited when the borrower's death.
Supreme Court to 788/2544.
The decision by Saturday. Creditors of the defendant to pay the bills, the plaintiffs in all three as a trustee of. Guarantors pledged towards the repayment of the defendant by the pharmacist. To think at a rate of interest that had accrued. Payment of one. It is unlawful, prohibited by Section 224, paragraph two, and the defendant is not liable to pay interest on the interest on that amount. The three plaintiffs are correct to within the company. I have been broken. Can not be sued for the right to take recourse to such amount from the defendant. I have just the right of recourse against the principal and interest payments from the defendant under Section 693 only.
Supreme Court in 4183/2543.
The defendant is an agreement to pay taxes or tax increases, combined with the extra cash and debt, other equipment that the plaintiff, the first may have to pay to the Department without an agreement, the plaintiff, both of which will be discarded. guarantee contract, or has the right to suspend, the defendant, a payment of taxes and tax increases, including money and debts to other devices by the plaintiff and therefore no right to order the defendant to a suspension. Payments to the Department of Customs When the defendant a receipt to the payment of duties. Since the first orator of the Customs Department, the debtor defaulted. Customs Department, the creditor prefers to call the defendant as a guarantor of payment in accordance with Section 686 of the first defendant had a duty to guarantee the payment of the Customs Department. When the defendant is a guarantor to pay the debt. I shall have recourse to a loan from the plaintiff for the payment of interest and for the loss or damage to any of the guarantees in accordance with Section 693, first paragraph.
Supreme Court in 2569/2541.
The Civil and Commercial Code Section 1272 The law prohibits filing a liability that a partnership or a debtor in a position such that after the expiration of two years after the end of the liquidation, but the Section 694 also provided that The defense, which guarantees a defendant a creditor or claimant against it. The guarantor may set up a defense which the debtor or his creditors, the department has to battle with.I find that the defendant is a guarantor of the status of a debtor class, and is entitled to set up a defense which is due to the plaintiff, who was due up against the plaintiff under Section 694 can not be accused of one, as the guarantor of the debt of the mall is. like to raise the age of 2 years under section 1272 against the plaintiff on the date of final liquidation of the Partnership filed until after the expiration of 2 years a. The plaintiff sued the defendant to terminate the first.
Supreme Court in 8154/2540.
Defendant owes a plaintiff. Contract to borrow money at 2 and 3, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff as guarantor for the loan. By agreeing to have their accounts with the defendant, one within the limits of the defendant, 2 and 3, guarantees that, under the letter of guarantee stating that "In addition, the guarantor shall not be discharged from liability because the bank may act to cause. the guarantor may not subcontract all or part of the rights to it, mortgage it pawn it and preferred stock of the debtor or any other person to be given to the bank, but before or during or after the agreement was "and. agreement is not contrary to public order. Binding the defendant, 2 and 3 in the party follows. The plaintiff mortgagee ignore or oppose the request as part of the defendant's fourth husband, she is one of the property to the defendant, four received the money that would set aside 750,000 baht from the sale of property, the mortgage is why the defendant, 2 and that 3rd defendant must be given at 2 and 3, it may not be released from liability. And is liable to the plaintiff under the guarantee agreement.
Supreme Court in 4205/2540.
By permitting the defendant to recover the loan from the borrower. T. The plaintiff was the guarantor of the agreement. Defendants who plead guilty in the vehicle and recover the damages. That the lender must sue the defendant in the claim as it used to be in full later, Thor and the defendant and the plaintiff sued to recover this. Plaintiff paid the Judgement of 89 220 baht and 2080 baht to cost more money, although Thor is. Thor would not claim to be the case. But when the plaintiff has paid 2080 baht to a T. It includes the total amount paid to the plaintiff. T. The plaintiff shall have the right to recourse to the defendant payment of U.S. $ 91,300 plus interest from the defendant under Section 693.
Supreme Court in 1519/2538.
The petitioner shall pay to the creditors for repayment upon the expiration of the then she would get the right to request repayment of the creditors who filed it, not because there are no provisions in the application. international law. Bankruptcy application. Since 2483, the problem can be done when diagnosing the Office withdraw an application for repayment of creditors, the court shall order the license is legal or not, so do not judge because they do not change the outcome of the case.
Supreme Court in 1319 - 1320/2538.
The rights of the plaintiff as guarantor to the recourse taken by the defendant shall be held when the plaintiff has paid the debt on behalf of the defendant and the provisions in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 693, but payments by way of the plaintiff would be bound. he is a debtor of Bank to pay off the debt of another defendant to the plaintiff for a debt to the Bank completed a debt and not between Bank of the defendant to settle the existing debt is not an end to it by changing bank accounts still have a claim for repayment to the defendant claims that the indictment does not occur when the fact that the plaintiff has paid the debt. Bank to the defendant to the plaintiff, or how many still have no right of recourse against the defendant.
Supreme Court in 9156/2538.
2 and 3, the defendant entered into an overdraft with the petitioner by the Ministry of agreement by the debtor and the defendant plead guilty to 2, 3 and A. The land and building at the second defendants. 3 and g jointly owned as collateral for loans under the overdraft with the defendant, 2, 3, and g is the owner of the mortgaged property, together Mutual right of ownership in the property mortgaged to the petitioner as a security for payment. obligations under the overdraft of the defendant by the defendant, 2 and 3, 2 and 3 as part of the debtor class. The second contract is a loan guarantee, and mortgage debt, which is the only device. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 724 does not grant the defendants 2 and 3, which was initially due to take recourse to the Ministry, a mortgage and the Ministry will accept an agreement with the defendant, 2. and 3 are due to A. It means only that they are liable with the defendant, 2 and 3, has meant that July has become the primary debtor, as defendants 2 and 3, too. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 693 can not be granted to the defendant, 2 and 3, to take recourse of g and g, which guarantees a defendant, 2 and 3, and is not payable due to each one to make. The offset between the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 341, when the objection to the proceeds from the sale of land and buildings of the defendant, 2 and 3 in the case of payment of 9,429,863 baht to the petitioner in other creditors as creditors before the opposition has no right to payment of U.S. $ 3,143,287.66 with the money going to offset part of the Ministry to get out of the auction.
Supreme Court in 5241/2538.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 696, paragraph one of the guarantors will have recourse to the debtor if the repayment of the debt by the debtor and the debtor fails to pay the debt again, only one case. The plaintiff, who I guarantee payment of 390,000 baht to the Bank's credit grade, then the remaining unpaid amount of debt in the amount of U.S. $ 43,441.43 to pay for this later case, the heirs of the year. . The deceased was later indicted and entered into a compromise to pay its debt to the Bank not to repeat the plaintiff has paid for it. Even so, the plaintiff will not tell the defendant that the plaintiff I have a debt to the defendant that they would like to get the right amount of 390,000 baht, took recourse to sue the defendant. The plaintiff claims the defendants, the heirs of the year. Caused the plaintiff to repay the loan. It is the company Ehgamrdk Bank as plaintiff as guarantor of the debt. The plaintiff is entitled to sue the contractor took recourse to the defendant. I have the recourse of the plaintiff in the plaintiff has paid the debt to the dead time after the Ehgamrdk. Since there are no provisions of law regarding the statute of Subrogation in particular. The need for a general under Section 164 of the Civil and Commercial Code is the age of ten years. The age of one year under section 1754, paragraph three, the age of the claims which the creditor has not Ehgamrdk used.
Supreme Court in 3185/2536.
Plaintiff's signature endorsing the check, the check holder disputes the plaintiff's liability would be just Aval payer money to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's right to have recourse to the payer of the person he or she has. the insurance. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 940 paragraph is entitled to have the same rights of a guarantor who has paid the debt then would be right to take recourse to remove from the debtor because of the guarantee in accordance with Section 693, first paragraph, the right of subrogation. Other debtors under Section 693 of the second paragraph of the legal rights of an aval, or guarantor, it can inherit the rights of a payer who is not in dispute. The absence of legislation specific time limit must be enforced under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 164, which is a legacy of 10 years and older.
Supreme Court to 97/2522.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 695 allows the debtor to assert the argument that the guarantor has paid the debt. Without recourse debt.
Defendant's agreement to the plaintiff. In the event that the plaintiff was called upon to pay the plaintiff the burden on the plaintiff's debt guarantees and HMS Partnership. The defendant will be liable to the plaintiff. The defendant was not the debtor. But a binding contract with the plaintiff's part separately. The debtor's rights under Section 695 does not.
Supreme Court to 402/2518.
Guarantees a defendant the plaintiff made to the employer rather than the defendant must pay a deposit in which a defendant entered a building contractor to the employer. Such guarantees are only bound to the contract, the plaintiff hired the defendant to pay the debt on a breach of contract and hire a contractor fails to pay the debt only. The plaintiff did not deposit guarantees provided by the employer as a defendant in a contract with the employer is not a guarantee deposit. And when the construction contract for the employer to confiscate the money, no guarantees. The employer can not forfeit this money (on petition for 1722/2513).
When the employer stating that the defendant's breach of contract and to forfeit the money under a guarantee. With the plaintiff to remit that amount to pay the plaintiff would be able to view a copy of the defendant, a construction contract awarded to it and know that employers are forfeited under the guarantee. Despite the guarantees will be liable to indemnify the plaintiff from the defendant, a breach of contract to hire contractor, but the employer does not claim to send money to compensate the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no obligation to send money to pay the claims of the employer when the plaintiff to pay the employer to the defendant one who is the debtor is not liable, and they accused the three defendants at the 4 objection to the plaintiff, no. The first recourse of the defendant debtor. 2,3,4,5, and from the defendant, who is guaranteed.
Supreme Court in 3531/2527.
The defendant to check the sale to the plaintiff and issued promissory notes, the same amount of the payment to the plaintiff after 58 days of the time checks to be paid along with a letter of offer, promissory note, stating that in such securities. insurance for the issuance of promissory notes with terms of payment that When the payments to the plaintiff to withdraw money from bank checks. If the plaintiff is deemed to be paid by check, promissory note the defendant's use of funds from the sale to reduce debt and checks shall be canceled. If the check is not money. Defendants are liable for payment under the promissory note with interest the plaintiff as the issuance of the promissory notes and certificates such as the plaintiff and the defendant's voluntary. The contract is a legally binding force. The check will be lost due to the plaintiff by the defendant to pay the bills. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff did not bring the check to the bank or to withdraw from the settlements became impossible to deny liability can not. And this is not a guarantee. Because the defendant to raise a ward of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 697 is liable as well. Defendant to offset the debt owed to the plaintiff arising from the damage caused to the plaintiff a check lost and not owe the plaintiff must pay by check, payable to the defendant the plaintiff is not checked, there was no debt. check what the defendant will be offset by the promissory note. The defendant has been damaged, however, prefer to take the plaintiff to correct them.
In addition, Section 694, which guarantees the lender against it. You may also set up a defense that the guarantor of their debts with creditors, which is up against it.
Section 695 which is the guarantor of the debtor fails to raise a defense up against that creditor, you have the right to take recourse to the extent that the debtor did not raise as a defense. Unless he proves that he did not know that such a defense. And that is because it is not their fault.
Section 696 does not guarantee the right to take recourse to the debtor. If they can not tell the debtor to pay debts. To repay their debts, and yet again.
In this case. Guarantor, but only to sue the creditor to recover only Lapmicwradg.
Section 697 if they made one of his creditors. As a result, the guarantor may not subcontract all or part of it right from the pledge, mortgage, and I preferred to be provided to creditors, but before or on the agreement to repay the debt. You will recall that the guarantor from liability to the extent that they need because of the damage.
Supreme Court to 791/2553.
The defendant is a corporation of a debt. The plaintiff accused the defendant of a second as the guarantor and the third to land in the amount of U.S. $ 4 million to secure the debt. The agreement at the end of the mortgage contract. If the mortgage has not enough money to pay the defendants 1 and 3, the part of the debt in full. This liability of the plaintiff, defendant, 2 and 3, with the corporation. Is in a position to repay loans, according to their position. The liability limits are set by the three defendants is liable as a mortgage, which sets a limit of liability. The plaintiff has the obligation to repay the corporation. To the plaintiff would inherit the rights of corporations. That the defendant took recourse to a loan that is primary to the full amount. However, the relationship between plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and No. 3 on the third defendant in the amount of mortgage loan insurance for U.S. $ 4 million, plus interest and the corporation. Sued the mortgage until the court ruling to enforce the mortgage. And the defendant an obligation of the corporation. Are more likely than the mortgage amount as a liability on the defendants three corporations and their connection. And the burden is liable to the corporation. The amount of the mortgage. However, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the defendant pay the plaintiff the amount of three corporations to escape liability. Or any less than the amount that each person is bound. Plaintiff to take recourse in respect of joint accounts, which will cause Damage to the corporation. The initial creditor in accordance with Section 230, paragraph two, the plaintiff can not take recourse to remove any third defendant also can not be determined exactly. The plaintiff does not have a debt in this bankruptcy case was filed for the three defendants.
Supreme Court in 2111/2551.
Creditor and the debtor, the second Sun. Co-borrower's first loan agreement with the plaintiff and the debtor is liable in accordance with Section 291 and Section 682 paragraph two, if the creditor payment to the plaintiff. Creditor shall have the right to recourse to remove receivables from the one which is due to begin in accordance with Section 693 paragraph one and the rights of the plaintiff's recourse is to the debtor, 2 which are secured together by equal parts of Section 229 (. 3) and section 296 by Debtors 1 and 2, the court shall order the court of any creditor is entitled to apply for payment for the amount they can take recourse to the accounts 1 and 2 in the future as well as a number or as the case may be. Unless the plaintiff has the right to receive payment in full of the debtor 1 or 2, according to the Bankruptcy Act 2483 Section 101, when the Sun is the assignee of the claims of the plaintiff. applying for an initial payment of the debt to the debtor and filed an application for repayment of debt secured against the debtor, the second will have the full amount. Creditor shall have the right to obtain payment for the amount they can take recourse against the debtor, the second time in the future.
Creditors and debtors of the debtor's debts are secured two contracts by agreeing to a loan against the T. Co. Creditors and debtors to 2, which is the guarantor of the debt the same as the debtor would be liable under the provisions of Section 682, paragraph two, when the guarantee does not limit the liability of the guarantor must be the same. The general principles of Section 229 and Section 296 of the T. accepting payment from the debtor, the second is $ 500,000 and a debt to the withdrawals against the debtor that is second only to the extent of the benefit of creditors, the debtor 2. release only. The north section 2, shall not be liable for T. anymore because the remaining debt for the debtor to the second suspension under Section 340 if the loan is payable only to a T. Which is not to be used. took recourse to the debtor, creditors can no longer two, therefore, may not receive payment from the debtor's assets 2.
Supreme Court in 1876/2551.
Entered into overdraft and loan agreements with banks, creditors, the amount of U.S. $ 4,000,000 plus interest by the plaintiff, defendant, 2 and 3, with another six people as a guarantor of the loan limits vary by the wrong as I joined up. . Wed, Section 682, paragraph two, when the plaintiff pay the defendant an amount of 4.88 million baht to the bank. Plaintiffs shall have recourse defendant No. 1 and get the right bank of recourse the guarantor and the proportion of the guarantors, each bound obligations under Section 693 and Section 229 (3), 296, the Court is ruling in a civil case. The defendant, 2 and 3, with the first defendant pay the plaintiff the amount of U.S. $ 3,020,952.37 plus interest. It does not specify the proportion of the liability of the defendant and the plaintiff has brought three with debt such as a bankruptcy filing that three defendants. The Civil Court issued an order to amend the error, or error lost the case, as already mentioned by the defendant, 2 and 3, together with the fact that a payment of principal and interest to the plaintiff by the defendant, 2 and 3. the agreement. Despite the amendment of the Civil Court in the proceedings, the defendants raised three new claims in this appeal. But the bankruptcy law relating to public order and according Section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act, the court must consider the fact that under Section 9 or Section 10 of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the testimony of such documents. The fact received that the defendant No. 3 is jointly liable with the defendant, the second portion of the agreement in the amount of just $ 500,000 and outstanding determined to prosecute this to 1,000,000 baht against the plaintiff does not like. The Bankruptcy Act and Section 9 (2).
Supreme Court in 8328/2550.
Section 90/60 of the Bankruptcy Act 2483 in accordance with the second paragraph of the order of the debtor's reorganization plan does not change the liability of a person who is a partner with the debtor or the debtor or guarantor is liable to apply for restoration. It is the company's contract to export sales of promissory notes to the plaintiff. Even later, the Court has ordered the reorganization of the company said it did not affect the liability of the defendant as a guarantor. The plaintiff does not sell debt under the promissory notes issued to shipping companies to apply for I can not make debt payments on hold. The defendant is not released from liability under the guarantee agreement. This may not be a case under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 697.
Supreme Court in 5369/2549.
Defendant a loan of B. The plaintiff accused the defendants 3 and 4 is the guarantor of 3 and 4, has promised that the plaintiff. B. If the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant, a defendant, 3 and 4 is payable to the plaintiff by the debtor's wrong. The defendant appeared in 3 and 4, the plaintiff contracted it. Debt contract guarantees that the plaintiff may be called for repayment B has occurred, but B must be guaranteed by the terms of the contract. The plaintiff, who may take recourse of the accused 3 and 4, the contract will be payable in the future. When the court receivership of the defendant at the 3 and 4, any plaintiff must file an application for payment for the amount that the plaintiff may take recourse in the future of the assets of the defendants 3 and 4, within two months. Advertising on the court of any Insolvency Act 2483, Section 27, 91, 94 and 101 baht, but has filed an application for repayment in case the court shall order the defendant to court 3. and at 4, then the plaintiff has filed an application for final payment is not prohibited by Section 101, paragraph one end. But the plaintiff's debt to B after a court ordered receivership of the defendant at the 3 and 4, the final result for the plaintiff to be entitled to claim the baht to enforce against the assets of the defendant.Another case, one can not.
Supreme Court to 10700/2546.
The plaintiff, who then secured debt. Shall have the right to take recourse of the defendant. 2, which is due to the payment of interest and to be lost or damaged in any way. As a guarantor under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 693, paragraph one, even in the second paragraph states that Guarantee the rights of creditors who have been with over the debtor. And the guarantee contract provided the guarantor is entitled to the rights of the owners are not required by law or contract to contract. It means only that the guarantor of the rights of those who prefer to use existing debt creditors. The debt insurance is only in its own name pursuant to Section 226, the plaintiff admitted the defendant's rights. A finding that the plaintiff is entitled to a motorcycle that had the second installment of the defendant at first, because motorcycles have become the property of the defendant, the second since the plaintiff has paid the lease for the defendant to two to complete by operation of Section 572 plaintiff may not. the defendant's right to terminate a lease agreement with no right to sue the two defendants accused of forcing a defendant to register the ownership of motorcycles and motorcycle 2 delivery to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 4356/2545.
In Civil and Commercial Code Section 1754, which stipulates that the first paragraph under Section 193/27 of the meaning of Section 1754 shall not affect the rights of creditors under Section 193/27 of the right to force creditors. even debt repayment will then terminate the matter. That Section 1754 shall not apply to creditors. Does not apply to the plaintiff, an ordinary creditor.
The second defendant is a guarantor to recognize, even if the debtor's The inheritance. It does not make a loan to a sample due to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 291, however, recognize that the debtor's Section 691, which would be just right can not raise a defense under Section 688,689 and 690 up against the creditor, so the defendant 2. are eligible under Section 694 to set up their fight. This is due to the plaintiff Ehgamrdk is payable by the defendant up against the two are not the heirs of the debtor The inheritance.
Agreement guarantees that. The borrower fails to pay principal and interest to the lender under the contract. Borrower's death or debt settlement is one reason why. Guarantee an acceptable substitute for total debt. But the guarantor will be liable for the debt even if the borrower died or lapsed or the borrower fails to pay the debt only. It does not include a waiver of prescription up against them. The guarantor has the right prescription to combat inherited when the borrower's death.
Supreme Court to 788/2544.
The decision by Saturday. Creditors of the defendant to pay the bills, the plaintiffs in all three as a trustee of. Guarantors pledged towards the repayment of the defendant by the pharmacist. To think at a rate of interest that had accrued. Payment of one. It is unlawful, prohibited by Section 224, paragraph two, and the defendant is not liable to pay interest on the interest on that amount. The three plaintiffs are correct to within the company. I have been broken. Can not be sued for the right to take recourse to such amount from the defendant. I have just the right of recourse against the principal and interest payments from the defendant under Section 693 only.
Supreme Court in 4183/2543.
The defendant is an agreement to pay taxes or tax increases, combined with the extra cash and debt, other equipment that the plaintiff, the first may have to pay to the Department without an agreement, the plaintiff, both of which will be discarded. guarantee contract, or has the right to suspend, the defendant, a payment of taxes and tax increases, including money and debts to other devices by the plaintiff and therefore no right to order the defendant to a suspension. Payments to the Department of Customs When the defendant a receipt to the payment of duties. Since the first orator of the Customs Department, the debtor defaulted. Customs Department, the creditor prefers to call the defendant as a guarantor of payment in accordance with Section 686 of the first defendant had a duty to guarantee the payment of the Customs Department. When the defendant is a guarantor to pay the debt. I shall have recourse to a loan from the plaintiff for the payment of interest and for the loss or damage to any of the guarantees in accordance with Section 693, first paragraph.
Supreme Court in 2569/2541.
The Civil and Commercial Code Section 1272 The law prohibits filing a liability that a partnership or a debtor in a position such that after the expiration of two years after the end of the liquidation, but the Section 694 also provided that The defense, which guarantees a defendant a creditor or claimant against it. The guarantor may set up a defense which the debtor or his creditors, the department has to battle with.I find that the defendant is a guarantor of the status of a debtor class, and is entitled to set up a defense which is due to the plaintiff, who was due up against the plaintiff under Section 694 can not be accused of one, as the guarantor of the debt of the mall is. like to raise the age of 2 years under section 1272 against the plaintiff on the date of final liquidation of the Partnership filed until after the expiration of 2 years a. The plaintiff sued the defendant to terminate the first.
Supreme Court in 8154/2540.
Defendant owes a plaintiff. Contract to borrow money at 2 and 3, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff as guarantor for the loan. By agreeing to have their accounts with the defendant, one within the limits of the defendant, 2 and 3, guarantees that, under the letter of guarantee stating that "In addition, the guarantor shall not be discharged from liability because the bank may act to cause. the guarantor may not subcontract all or part of the rights to it, mortgage it pawn it and preferred stock of the debtor or any other person to be given to the bank, but before or during or after the agreement was "and. agreement is not contrary to public order. Binding the defendant, 2 and 3 in the party follows. The plaintiff mortgagee ignore or oppose the request as part of the defendant's fourth husband, she is one of the property to the defendant, four received the money that would set aside 750,000 baht from the sale of property, the mortgage is why the defendant, 2 and that 3rd defendant must be given at 2 and 3, it may not be released from liability. And is liable to the plaintiff under the guarantee agreement.
Supreme Court in 4205/2540.
By permitting the defendant to recover the loan from the borrower. T. The plaintiff was the guarantor of the agreement. Defendants who plead guilty in the vehicle and recover the damages. That the lender must sue the defendant in the claim as it used to be in full later, Thor and the defendant and the plaintiff sued to recover this. Plaintiff paid the Judgement of 89 220 baht and 2080 baht to cost more money, although Thor is. Thor would not claim to be the case. But when the plaintiff has paid 2080 baht to a T. It includes the total amount paid to the plaintiff. T. The plaintiff shall have the right to recourse to the defendant payment of U.S. $ 91,300 plus interest from the defendant under Section 693.
Supreme Court in 1519/2538.
The petitioner shall pay to the creditors for repayment upon the expiration of the then she would get the right to request repayment of the creditors who filed it, not because there are no provisions in the application. international law. Bankruptcy application. Since 2483, the problem can be done when diagnosing the Office withdraw an application for repayment of creditors, the court shall order the license is legal or not, so do not judge because they do not change the outcome of the case.
Supreme Court in 1319 - 1320/2538.
The rights of the plaintiff as guarantor to the recourse taken by the defendant shall be held when the plaintiff has paid the debt on behalf of the defendant and the provisions in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 693, but payments by way of the plaintiff would be bound. he is a debtor of Bank to pay off the debt of another defendant to the plaintiff for a debt to the Bank completed a debt and not between Bank of the defendant to settle the existing debt is not an end to it by changing bank accounts still have a claim for repayment to the defendant claims that the indictment does not occur when the fact that the plaintiff has paid the debt. Bank to the defendant to the plaintiff, or how many still have no right of recourse against the defendant.
Supreme Court in 9156/2538.
2 and 3, the defendant entered into an overdraft with the petitioner by the Ministry of agreement by the debtor and the defendant plead guilty to 2, 3 and A. The land and building at the second defendants. 3 and g jointly owned as collateral for loans under the overdraft with the defendant, 2, 3, and g is the owner of the mortgaged property, together Mutual right of ownership in the property mortgaged to the petitioner as a security for payment. obligations under the overdraft of the defendant by the defendant, 2 and 3, 2 and 3 as part of the debtor class. The second contract is a loan guarantee, and mortgage debt, which is the only device. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 724 does not grant the defendants 2 and 3, which was initially due to take recourse to the Ministry, a mortgage and the Ministry will accept an agreement with the defendant, 2. and 3 are due to A. It means only that they are liable with the defendant, 2 and 3, has meant that July has become the primary debtor, as defendants 2 and 3, too. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 693 can not be granted to the defendant, 2 and 3, to take recourse of g and g, which guarantees a defendant, 2 and 3, and is not payable due to each one to make. The offset between the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 341, when the objection to the proceeds from the sale of land and buildings of the defendant, 2 and 3 in the case of payment of 9,429,863 baht to the petitioner in other creditors as creditors before the opposition has no right to payment of U.S. $ 3,143,287.66 with the money going to offset part of the Ministry to get out of the auction.
Supreme Court in 5241/2538.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 696, paragraph one of the guarantors will have recourse to the debtor if the repayment of the debt by the debtor and the debtor fails to pay the debt again, only one case. The plaintiff, who I guarantee payment of 390,000 baht to the Bank's credit grade, then the remaining unpaid amount of debt in the amount of U.S. $ 43,441.43 to pay for this later case, the heirs of the year. . The deceased was later indicted and entered into a compromise to pay its debt to the Bank not to repeat the plaintiff has paid for it. Even so, the plaintiff will not tell the defendant that the plaintiff I have a debt to the defendant that they would like to get the right amount of 390,000 baht, took recourse to sue the defendant. The plaintiff claims the defendants, the heirs of the year. Caused the plaintiff to repay the loan. It is the company Ehgamrdk Bank as plaintiff as guarantor of the debt. The plaintiff is entitled to sue the contractor took recourse to the defendant. I have the recourse of the plaintiff in the plaintiff has paid the debt to the dead time after the Ehgamrdk. Since there are no provisions of law regarding the statute of Subrogation in particular. The need for a general under Section 164 of the Civil and Commercial Code is the age of ten years. The age of one year under section 1754, paragraph three, the age of the claims which the creditor has not Ehgamrdk used.
Supreme Court in 3185/2536.
Plaintiff's signature endorsing the check, the check holder disputes the plaintiff's liability would be just Aval payer money to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's right to have recourse to the payer of the person he or she has. the insurance. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 940 paragraph is entitled to have the same rights of a guarantor who has paid the debt then would be right to take recourse to remove from the debtor because of the guarantee in accordance with Section 693, first paragraph, the right of subrogation. Other debtors under Section 693 of the second paragraph of the legal rights of an aval, or guarantor, it can inherit the rights of a payer who is not in dispute. The absence of legislation specific time limit must be enforced under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 164, which is a legacy of 10 years and older.
Supreme Court to 97/2522.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 695 allows the debtor to assert the argument that the guarantor has paid the debt. Without recourse debt.
Defendant's agreement to the plaintiff. In the event that the plaintiff was called upon to pay the plaintiff the burden on the plaintiff's debt guarantees and HMS Partnership. The defendant will be liable to the plaintiff. The defendant was not the debtor. But a binding contract with the plaintiff's part separately. The debtor's rights under Section 695 does not.
Supreme Court to 402/2518.
Guarantees a defendant the plaintiff made to the employer rather than the defendant must pay a deposit in which a defendant entered a building contractor to the employer. Such guarantees are only bound to the contract, the plaintiff hired the defendant to pay the debt on a breach of contract and hire a contractor fails to pay the debt only. The plaintiff did not deposit guarantees provided by the employer as a defendant in a contract with the employer is not a guarantee deposit. And when the construction contract for the employer to confiscate the money, no guarantees. The employer can not forfeit this money (on petition for 1722/2513).
When the employer stating that the defendant's breach of contract and to forfeit the money under a guarantee. With the plaintiff to remit that amount to pay the plaintiff would be able to view a copy of the defendant, a construction contract awarded to it and know that employers are forfeited under the guarantee. Despite the guarantees will be liable to indemnify the plaintiff from the defendant, a breach of contract to hire contractor, but the employer does not claim to send money to compensate the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no obligation to send money to pay the claims of the employer when the plaintiff to pay the employer to the defendant one who is the debtor is not liable, and they accused the three defendants at the 4 objection to the plaintiff, no. The first recourse of the defendant debtor. 2,3,4,5, and from the defendant, who is guaranteed.
Supreme Court in 3531/2527.
The defendant to check the sale to the plaintiff and issued promissory notes, the same amount of the payment to the plaintiff after 58 days of the time checks to be paid along with a letter of offer, promissory note, stating that in such securities. insurance for the issuance of promissory notes with terms of payment that When the payments to the plaintiff to withdraw money from bank checks. If the plaintiff is deemed to be paid by check, promissory note the defendant's use of funds from the sale to reduce debt and checks shall be canceled. If the check is not money. Defendants are liable for payment under the promissory note with interest the plaintiff as the issuance of the promissory notes and certificates such as the plaintiff and the defendant's voluntary. The contract is a legally binding force. The check will be lost due to the plaintiff by the defendant to pay the bills. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff did not bring the check to the bank or to withdraw from the settlements became impossible to deny liability can not. And this is not a guarantee. Because the defendant to raise a ward of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 697 is liable as well. Defendant to offset the debt owed to the plaintiff arising from the damage caused to the plaintiff a check lost and not owe the plaintiff must pay by check, payable to the defendant the plaintiff is not checked, there was no debt. check what the defendant will be offset by the promissory note. The defendant has been damaged, however, prefer to take the plaintiff to correct them.
