Auction

Section 509. The Sale of Shares When the marketers agree with the knock. Or in any other way customary in the auction. If it is not shown so long. He said that the fighters will withdraw their price is still withdrawn.

Section 510. Buyers at the auction must follow the ad for sale. And according to other terms, marketers have announced before the fight to price specific property.

Section 511 prohibits marketers from competing against prices. Or use any one to fight the price to market, which he is the director himself.

Section 512 prohibits the seller from entering the price itself. Or use any one to fight the price, unless specifically stated in the advertising statement to market it. The seller is entitled to the price.

Section 513. When marketers see that the price of the highest bidder is not enough, the market taker may withdraw the property from the market.

Section 514. The fighter loses his commitment to the price, which he fought, but while others were fighting for higher prices. No one else is perfect or perfect. Another one when withdrawing the property from the market. The fighters are free from bondage, but the withdrawal is the same.

Section 515. The highest bidder shall use the price in cash. When the transaction is complete. Or by the time specified in the ad for sale.

Section 516. If the highest bidder ignored, do not use the price. You take the market to remove the property again. If the net worth is not worth the price and the original price of the auction. The price of the original fighter is the responsibility.

Section 517. If any part of the marketing proceeds is unpaid. Because marketers neglected to enforce the provisions of Section 515 or Section 516, he said that the market leader will be liable.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 98/2560.

             Enforcement Officer auctioned land title deed No. 44249 in this case, the land title defendant is the holder. The remaining proceeds from the auction are deducted from court fees and paid to the creditor of the defendant in this case. Defendants who are debtors under the judgment and ownership of the ownership of the land shall be entitled to receive the money in accordance with Section 322 paragraph two of the Civil Code, the petitioner, the plaintiff's representative in the civil case, the red number. 573/2544 of Phuket Provincial Court There is no right to be paid directly to the petitioner, but because the lender is the court of last resort in the case. Judge the defendant to register the land title deeds 44248 and 44249 to the plaintiff if it is not possible to use the price of 40,000,000 baht, the land title deed No. 44249 was seized and auctioned in this case. As a result, the defendant can not register the transfer of this land to the LL, so the right to enforce such lawsuit by the defendant used the price of this land. When the auction of the deed No. 44249 to make the defendant money. The case was held by the defendant civil court in civil case No. 573/2544 of the Phuket Provincial Court. The interested parties in the enforcement of the lawsuit regarding the property of the defendant in this case under Section 280 (1) of the Civil Code, so for the sake of justice should send the proceeds from the auction of land title deeds. 44249 The remainder after the payment of the court fees and paid to the creditor of the defendant in this case. To the Phuket Provincial Court in the case of civil case, red number 573/2544 of the Phuket Provincial Court. To pay the land the defendant must pay to the plaintiff in accordance with the final judgment in the case before. If there is no land price to be paid, or when the land price has already been paid. Then pay the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8904/2559.

          The plaintiff knew before bidding to buy the apartment. The former co-owners have the central expenses and the arrears to the defendant 1, both according to the auction notice of the Enforcement Officer, the buyer must pay for the central expenses and surcharges owed. The plaintiff's bid to buy this apartment is equal to the plaintiff agreed terms and conditions in the announcement of the auction with the Enforcement Officer. If the plaintiff is the bidder to buy a suite and have debts owed to the central property, the plaintiff is liable for this debt. When it appears that the former co-owners have a central charge and additional arrears to the defendant, the plaintiff who is the buyer of the apartment must accept both the rights and obligations of the original co-owner. The plaintiff is obliged to pay the central expenses and additional money to the defendant that the plaintiff claimed the Civil Code Section 309, as amended by the Amendment to the Civil Code (revised version). 29) BE 2558 Section 3 that the Enforcement Officer instructed the condominium juristic person to notify the debt payment expenses to issue a certificate of debt relief under the law on condominiums to cover officials. The case is within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. Upon auction, the Enforcement Officer shall pay the proceeds from the auction to repay the arrears until the auction day to the juristic person before the mortgagee. And the competent official shall register the transfer of ownership to the buyer without using the certificate of debt relief. Section 2 of the said Act. This Act shall come into force on and from the day following the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Effective from November 20, 2015 onwards, but the auction of the Enforcement Officer before the enforcement of this Act can not apply the Civil Code Section 309 to apply to this case. When the plaintiff refuses to pay the central expenses and the old co-owner arrears to the defendant, the two defendants have no obligation to issue a letter of guarantee to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8415/2559.

                Section 12 of the Revenue Code stipulates that "taxes which are levied or deposited in this manner. When it is due If it is not lost or delivered, it will be considered as a tax "accrued" and the second paragraph "to receive payment of outstanding taxes. The Director General shall have the power to order the seizure or attachment and the auction of the property of the taxable person ... I do not need to ask the court to seize or order ... "shows that. If the plaintiff does not pay tax according to the internal assessment. Is considered outstanding tax debt Defendant has the power to seize or attach and sell the property of the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6968/2559.

               When the defendant fails to comply with the verdict, and the plaintiff wishes to receive payment. The plaintiff shall have the right to request the enforcement of the procedures set forth in the judgment. By the enforcement officer seized mortgaged property auctioned. If net money is not enough to repay the debt. The plaintiff will have the right to bring the defendant's assets to the pledge to sell and sell the net proceeds to pay the outstanding debt within ten years from the day after the last defendant to repay the debt. The plaintiff as prescribed in the judgment under the consent. If the mortgaged property is not sold. The plaintiff can not request the Enforcement Officer to seize the defendant's other assets. Because contrary to the procedure set forth in the verdict, the plaintiff and the defendant agree to voluntarily and force each other. By the sanctity of the intentional and lawful. The provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 149, which is the law of the Code of Civil Procedure Code Section 138, the court sentenced under the agreement is provided as follows. The enforcement of the Civil Code Section 271, which is the main section. To enforce the case in accordance with the procedures set out in the verdict, which is bound to comply with the Civil Code Section 145 paragraph one.

(Meeting 6/2559)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6613/2559.

                 According to Civil Code Section 271 when the debtor fails to pay debt under the judgment. Creditors under the judgment will have the right to request enforcement of the case if the debt. Creditors under the verdict have the right to bring the property of the debtor to the debtor to sell the auction to pay for the debt. And the enforcement of the law must also be in force under Section 284. Section 284, paragraph one of the law that "unless it is law. Or the court will order otherwise. To prohibit the seizure or attachment of the debtor's assets in accordance with the judgment more than enough to pay debts to the creditors in accordance with the judgment together with the court fees and court fees, if the money is enough to repay the debt. Do not remove the assets held on the auction. Or otherwise disposed of ". Meaning and intent only forbid the creditors of the verdict and the Enforcement Officer to detain more than enough to pay debts. I do not have any meaning or intention to prohibit detention. The value of debt is higher than the debt. The seizure of the execution of the case is the act and the joint judgment between the creditor and the Enforcement Officer. For this case. When the plaintiff can not find and evidence of ownership of other assets of the defendant, but the property that the plaintiff is seized is the land with the building dispute. Until the date the plaintiff seized the property. It is almost the end of the execution period, even though the property pledged by the plaintiff is worth more than the debt of the judgment. It is not prohibited to make the plaintiff has no right to seize for enforcement. The plaintiff will exercise the right to have the lawful. According to Civil Code Section 271, 282 (1), 283, paragraph one and 284 by pointing out or confirming the officer seized property. And the Enforcement Officer must seize the property as the plaintiff pointed out.

(meeting 12/2559)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6612/2559.

                Even the plaintiff sued the defendant to force the first payment of debt owed to the president. But the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit. If the two defendants do not pay for the mortgage, sold the money to pay the plaintiff. And enforce the other property of the two defendants until the plaintiff will receive full repayment. The plaintiff would like to enforce the case of land and buildings that are mortgaged property. It is a mortgage lawsuit. When it comes to the fact that the mortgage agreement has no agreement. If the plaintiff mortgaged the mortgaged property on the mortgage, the mortgage to the net worth less than the amount of arrears to seize the mortgaged property sold at auction, the mortgage to the mortgage as a complete agreement. Section 733, so when the plaintiff's mortgage is taken off the auction to pay the debt to the plaintiff. If the money is not enough. The plaintiff can not request the seizure of the defendant's other assets to pay the plaintiff to complete. The problem is the legal problem of public order.

(Meeting 7/2559)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6458/2559.

                This case was caused by the auction of three land plots of the official receiver. However, the plaintiff is a creditor, mortgaged land and less money from the defendant's actions. To affect the right of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a direct stakeholder in order to force the money from the defendant under Section 516 of the defendant, only the market leader will be forced to remove from the defendant. The plaintiff was disputed by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 55. Both the creditor meeting also resolved not to the receivership officer to carry out the money from the defendant. And the receiver of the plaintiff to the plaintiff to pay the difference of the defendant. The plaintiff sued. And when the defendant is domiciled in the court. The plaintiff sued the defendant to the Court of First Instance under Section 4 (1) of the defendant in the bid to buy land, believe that the three plots of land have the same contact area and access to the public road. Every plot This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what is the substance of the act void or not. The defendant raised this issue in the appeal class, but the Court of Appeal did not make a ruling. When both parties have witnessed the case. The Supreme Court deems it appropriate to diagnose this problem. If the defendant has any doubts or wishes to know the details of the three plots of land that has the same contact area and the entrance to the property. Are all public roads all plots? The defendant can check the facts from the relevant government easily. The defendant entered the auction for the first time. The defendant recently checked the land. It is the defect of the defendant did not carefully check before bidding to buy land. The defendant can not claim the importance of the location of the land for their benefit. The fact is that the defendant entered the auction to buy all three plots of land was caused by the intention to make a mistake in the substance of the act. Not void Defendant is liable in the amount of the difference of the pledge of land to the plaintiff under Section 516

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6134/2559.

            On the day of filing a petition to revoke the plaintiff's auction. Court of Appeal The objection of the property buyer and the report of the Enforcement Officer that the facts enough to diagnose. So let's stop the probe. The Court of First Instance has ruled in favor of the plaintiff's case. There is no reason to postpone the case. To lift the plaintiff's request. The case that the Court of First Instance did not have a ruling to lift the plaintiff's petition for adjournment because there is no reason or not believe that the plaintiff witnessed the actual illness. Court of First Instance does not need to consider the need to postpone the case of the plaintiff. Or ordered the court officer to look at the symptoms of the plaintiff's witnesses in accordance with Civil and Commercial Code, Section 40 and Section 41. But the plaintiff did not appeal, arguing against the order of the Court of First Instance. The facts of the plaintiff's claim. The objection of the buyer and the report of the Enforcement Officer is not enough to judge the plaintiff's case in any matter, however, the Court of First Instance ordered the refusal to investigate the request for revocation of the plaintiff's auction and the order of the plaintiff's case. Continue to not allow the plaintiff to postpone the case. And Court of Appeal Judge Stand It is the process that you like. If it is a violation of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 309 bis must be in the case of creditors under the judgment. Debtors under the judgment or interested parties to enforce the case have objected to the auction price. The Enforcement Officer auctioned to the highest bidder without extending the auction period. But at the request of the plaintiff's retraction of the claim that. While the Enforcement Officer auctioned the mortgage of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's representative went out to do personal business, which was a short period when the plaintiff's representative returned to the auction room again. It appears that the Enforcement Officer auctioned mortgaged property. This is the case where the Enforcement Officer to auction this case to the buyer without the objection. It does not violate the provisions of the said section. It does not appear that the Enforcement Officer has any duty to declare or telephone the plaintiff to pursue the plaintiff's objection to the auction price before any. The fact is that the auction of property of the Enforcement Officer in this case is a violation of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 296, paragraph two of the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff's plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff's representatives are negligent. And the plaintiff's claim that the property at the auction has a trading price of up to 1,000,000 baht, and the plaintiff's representative was assigned to fight for the price of not less than 680,000 baht, not the same as the Court of First Instance, has ruled that the auction of this case. It is not the auction of property at unreasonably low prices. There are no fraudulent bets among those involved in the fight. Or the dishonesty or gross negligence of the Enforcement Officer in violation of the provisions of Civil Code Section 309 bis paragraph two not that the Court of First Instance has not been ruled as the Court of Appeal. The order of the Court of First Instance to raise a petition for the cancellation of the auction of this case to the end of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 309 bis paragraph four, the plaintiff has no right to appeal the order of the Court of First Instance on this point. Although the Court of Appeal will decide it is not like. And do not give rise to the right to petition the plaintiff. The Supreme Court does not recognize

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5752/2559.

                The petitioner is the fifth creditor who submitted a claim for creditors under the Bankruptcy Act, BE 2483, Section 96 (3), and the court ordered the petitioner to receive the debt. The defendant's assets amounted to 1,087,902.64 baht, with repayment from the auction of land title deeds No. 128812 and 137866 Samrong Sub-district (Samrong) Phra Pradaeng District (Phra Khanong) Samutprakarn. Only part of the defendant. The lack of repayment to ordinary creditors. Then the petitioner brought the objection to seize the land and the building, which is the property of the defendant, the owner of the property and the opposition to the auction at the price of 940,000 baht, which the objections to the account pay. The defendants paid a net amount of 438,291 baht to the petitioner. And the money in the possession of the holder of the amount of 467,650 baht, when considering the petitioner petition filed with the opposing party asked to pay the same to the petitioner. The applicant claims that the defendant and the owner of the collateral to mortgage mortgage insurance. And debt overdrafts that the defendant and a debt collector jointly with the debt owed to the defendant on December 13, 2002 is 935,291.23 baht when the collateral is owned by the defendant and the owner and the owner. The opposition to use the power to seize the auction together in segregation. The applicant as the creditor's mortgage creditor will have the right to file a petition to the objections to obtain mortgage debt in half of the property. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 287 is not subject to absolute custody, but it does not preclude the claimant as a creditor, a mortgagee who has the right to request the enforcement of such property. The provisions of the above law to repay mortgage debt in half of the collateral property that the objection holder quite. Do not need to file a lawsuit or petition before. The opposing party can send a copy of the petitioner's request. The holder of the title has the opportunity to object and investigate further orders. The opposition and the Samut Prakan Provincial Court ordered the petitioner to file a petition to the court that has power is not like.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5368/2559.

               Condominium Act, 1979, Section 18 states that debts incurred by the owner, including the owner of the condominium unit, are obliged to pay jointly. The laws and regulations of condominium juristic persons are the requirements of the right and duty of the residents for the common good. Co-owners must be responsible for central expenses and legal fees. The plaintiff is a commercial bank. Bid for Condominium No. 83/15, 1st Floor, No. 1 Building, Building 3, Taling Chan Bangkok The auction by the Enforcement Officer. The plaintiff is the buyer to both the rights and obligations of the original co-owner and must be considered a penalty resulting from the default payment of the central expenses under the defendant's terms. It is part of the central costs that the plaintiff is responsible for. In the announcement of the auction house. Normal of the Enforcement Officer The conditions of the auction. The buyer is responsible for the liability (if any) to the condominium, which is in accordance with the law enforcement. The plaintiff can check the debt from the Enforcement Officer before bidding to fight the price. If the plaintiff considers that the overdue central expenses are higher or higher than the price of the apartment purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff can decide whether to enter the auction at the auction or not. When the plaintiff has not paid the central expenses and delinquent payments to the defendant. Defendant has the right to refuse to issue a certificate of debt relief to the plaintiff and suspend the utilities necessary for the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3892/2559.

             The plaintiff claims that the defendant is the principal of the charge. The plaintiff bought the disputes room No. 30/540 from the auction of the Enforcement Officer in court order. And the Enforcement Officer has made a letter to the Land Authority of Nonthaburi. Request to register the mortgage and transfer the ownership of the apartment to the plaintiff. That's the way it is. The plaintiff has a letter to the defendant to issue a letter of guarantee to the landlord to suspend the mortgage and transfer the ownership to the plaintiff. But the defendant ignored. Defendant Case number 30/540, the defendant found that since January 1995, the employee of the defendant occupied the peace of the owner was revealed to the present. Ownership is therefore the property of the defendant, so the defendant can not issue a letter of guarantee to the plaintiff. According to the indictment and the testimony that the suite of the number is the ownership of the plaintiff, the defendant must issue a certificate of debt or not. Is there any problem that the defendant arrears central charges against the defendant? The defendant pointed out that the plaintiff owed the central cost of the defendant refused to issue a letter of guarantee to the plaintiff. This is a testimony outside of the testimony. The Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiff because the plaintiff has no evidence that the plaintiff has paid the central expenses and penalty payments to the defendant. And the Court of Appeal 1 Judge stood by the Court of First Instance on such issues. I do not like to be diagnosed with the Civil Code Section 142. The statement that the fight against the occupation. The defendant did not claim that the defendant occupied the room until the dispute. It claims to have an outsider possesses possession without the evidence of a court judgment showing ownership of that person or the registration of ownership of another person. This is a testimony that can not cause the court to decide the defendant to win the case on this issue.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3598/2559.

              Section 510 of the Commerce Act states that "Buyers at the auction must follow the ad for sale. And according to other clauses, which marketers have announced before the fight to fight the price of specific property. "This case, even the Enforcement Officer announced the auction, stating that. Conversion of land plots 1, 4 and 5 together, plots 2 and 3 together, but on the auction day, the defendant is the one to file a request to the Enforcement Officer to auction all five plots of land under Section 309 paragraph two of the Enforcement Officer. Ask the plaintiff not objection. And the way of the plaintiff's attorney. Before the auction, the auctioneer and interested parties to hear that the auction will sell all five plots of land together by the defendant to the auction 2, but the defendant did not object to the two. The Enforcement Officer sold the five plots together. The Enforcement Officer sold the five plots together. To comply with the wishes of the defendant, then the advertising is said that the sale or consolidation of property is only a means of auctioning the property of the Enforcement Officer. The details of the auction. There is no legal provision or court order that the Enforcement Officer must make the advertisement tell the seller the details of how to sell. When the Enforcement Officer agrees that the sale is combined, it is expected that the proceeds of the sale will increase. Enforcement Officer shall have the power to arrange the sale of all five plots of land together under Section 309 (1) (c) of Section 309 (b). The order of the Enforcement Officer to include the five plots of land together. As part of the advertisement, sales or other messages that marketers have announced before the fight to the price of specific property in accordance with the provisions of Section 510 of the plaintiff, the buyer at the auction must comply with the order. Enforcement Officer The auction of the five plots of the Enforcement Officer like it. It does not violate any law.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3591/2559.

              The defendant, the highest bidder in the original auction, neglected to use the purchase price of the property under the defendant's contract to the Enforcement Officer. The Enforcement Officer must be sold again. And the net worth is not worth the price and the original auction price. Defendant, the former bidder is liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 516, and the defendant's actions can be regarded as a dispute over the right of the plaintiff, the creditor in accordance with the judgment to receive the debt. The proceeds from the auction under Section 55 of the Civil and Commercial Code, the plaintiff has the power to sue the defendant. The defendant is a bidder to buy property from the auction of the first Enforcement Officer and be liable for the price of the lack of Section 516 of the defendant is a stakeholder in the enforcement of the law. Section 296, paragraph two, and Section 309 bis, to dispute the objection to the new auction, if it is not. When the defendant failed to take care of the sale by filing a request for a revocation of the new auction, claiming that the new auction was conducted for no reason. And do not object that the plaintiff's purchase of disputed property from the new auction at 4,440,000 baht was caused by fraudulent betrayal among those involved in the price war or dishonesty or serious negligence of the Enforcement Officer. Officiate When the Enforcement Officer considers that the price is reasonable and sell the power of the Enforcement Officer to knock wood sold to the plaintiff, the highest bidder in the new auction. The new auction is legal. The defendant is liable for the difference of 8,760,000 baht, which the defendant is liable for the difference in the amount of the defendant himself with the highest bid in the previous 13,200,000 baht. Dispute of the Enforcement Officer is only 8,870,000 baht, the plaintiff sued the defendant to defend the case in this case is exercised in good faith.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3332/2559.

              The applicant to file a petition for the objection to the collateral to sell the auction as a creditor under the insurance. Bankruptcy Act Section 95 is a case where the mortgagee requests to take advantage of the mortgaged property not to exceed the mortgage. If you sell more than the mortgage. The excess money will fall into the property division of the defendant bankrupt. If the sale does not reach the mortgage price, the remaining debt is folded to the mortgagee. So you have to pay interest to the pet until the auction. When applying for a collateral Not to file a request for payment under Section 91, Section 96 is not prohibited to charge interest after the date of the court order to protect under Section 100

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2925/2559.

            The auction under the court order to enforce the case under the judgment or order shall be in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure No. 2 on the enforcement of the judgment or order that the Enforcement Officer shall comply with such provisions and shall sell the property. To the highest bidder. At the auction The law enforcement officer sells the land to the buyer of the property, which is the highest bidder in the auction, so that the buyer of the property claims that the defendant asked the buyer to buy property to buy the property and promise that if the buyer wins. auction The defendant will transfer the right of the defendant to the third party to the buyer. Then the defendant broke the contract. If it is true, it is a matter for the buyer to take the plaintiff to the defendant. Not related to the auction of property from the auction of this case. And the Enforcement Officer is a representative of the plaintiff, which is a creditor under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 278 is not representative of the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2746/2559.

           The lawsuit appears that after the defendant's estate pledge the land of the defendant, the two have sold the auction. Enforcement Officer to pay the second payment to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has examined the account and received money from March 23, 2007 so it is considered that the plaintiff has paid the proceeds from the auction to the plaintiff, which is a creditor. By judgment The enforcement of this case was completed by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 296, paragraph four. (2) The plaintiff filed a request to the Enforcement Officer to amend the second payment entry on January 2, 2014, so filed. After the enforcement of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 296, paragraph three.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2742/2559.

             The petitioner filed a petition to revoke the auction of the land of the second defendant, the defendant claims that the land and conditions are not in accordance with the report of the detention. Map of the land plot and announced Enforcement Officer Typically, the Court of First Instance must receive a petition and a copy of the petition to the plaintiff and the second defendant as a person who has a stake in the enforcement of Civil Procedure Code Section 280 (1) whether to object or not. The Court of First Instance ordered the appointment. Send a copy to the insurer and the Enforcement Officer. By not sending a copy of the petition to the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 with the petition of the petitioner is not a request that the Civil Code provides that it is only one party under Section 21 (2) as follows. The Court of First Instance proceeded the proceedings until the order was issued. And the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stood by the Court of First Instance, so it is not like. I do not think it is. But the problem is the law of public order under Section 142 (5) Supreme Court has the power to raise the diagnosis.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2464/2559.

        According to the Condominium Act, BE 2522 (1979), Section 18, Paragraph Two states that "Co-owners (ie, owners of condominium units) must jointly pay for expenses incurred from the provision of public services and those arising from the equipment, appliances and facilities. Convenience available for use or for mutual benefit. And the costs of maintenance and operation of common property in proportion to which each co-owner has ownership of the common property under Section 14 or for the benefit of the condominium as defined in the " Therefore, it is obliged to pay the expenses as provided for in Section 18, paragraph two, and in the case that the application for registration. Matthew and legal ownership of a condominium unit The applicant must have a letter of credit from the expenses under Section 18 to be presented to the official as provided. Section 29 paragraph two, which states that. "In case of application for registration of rights and legal transfer of ownership in the apartment. The competent official shall register the right and juristic acts when the apartment is free of debt arising from the expenses under Section 18, with the certificate of the most debt free from the condominium company to show. "The plaintiff is the buyer only disputes from the auction. Of the Enforcement Officer, and even the plaintiff is not the debtor, who owes the debt expenses as specified in Article 18, paragraph However, the plaintiff's bid to buy a disputed room by the Enforcement Officer shall have the same effect as the plaintiff has entered into a contract. Will be responsible for repayment of the conditions specified in the notice of the Enforcement Officer to the third party instead of the debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 374, so when the owner of the apartment owed the central debt owed to the defendant. The plaintiff has the obligation to pay the central debt to the defendant. The plaintiff is claiming that he is not the debt that the defendant called for payment, so they are not liable to pay debts under Section 18 paragraph two can not find.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1379/2559.

              Enforcement Officer auctioned four plots of land together, not sold separately. The transfer of ownership of all four plots of land to the purchaser of property must be done in full accordance with the true intentions of the debt. Otherwise, the buyer of the property likes to refuse to accept the debt. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the revocation of the land use certificate of one of four plots, claiming that the land overturned by the company as follows: When the purchase of property from the auction has not been completed. The petitioner may not be covered by Section 1330 until the damage to the petitioner later. The petitioner said that the remaining land. The case is not the fault of the petitioner or the claimant does not pay the price. It is considered that there are special circumstances that will delay the payment of the remaining four plots of land until the lawsuit filed by the defendant company will have the final judgment.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1304/2559.

             The plaintiff who purchased the land from the auction is the payer for the purchase of land, which is assessed under Section 40 (8) to the real estate seller. Section 50 (5) and the deductible tax shall be paid to the competent official registrar of rights and juristic acts at the time of registration of land transfer. The tax amount of 5,486,200 baht that the plaintiff claimed in this case. The money that the payer has withholding tax, sent to the competent official under Section 52 paragraph two. Later, the court ordered the revocation of the auction. And the Enforcement Officer has a letter dated December 9, 2008 to the Bangkok land official. To cancel the registration of transfer of ownership of land to the buyer of the property and return the contract to the original. The plaintiff did not buy land from the auction. And no obligation to send withholding tax to the competent. Filing a tax return from the defendant in this case is not a refund of taxes and taxes that are deducted at the time of payment and then sent in excess of the tax should be. The obligation to file a petition within three years from the last day of filing the tax as provided in Section 27 ter, paragraph one, the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of tax 5,486,200 baht from the defendant. Before the court finally ordered the revocation of the auction. The plaintiff is responsible for delivering the withholding tax. And the defendant received tax money that has been delivered by the legal right. The court has finally ordered the revocation of the auction, which is the reason behind it and not the cause of the penalty. Defendant has no liability to refund tax and interest to the plaintiff. But later the auction was canceled. And the plaintiff filed a petition on January 29, 2009 call the defendant to return the money. Case is owed money. Defendant is not the default and not pay the interest rate 7.5 percent per annum from January 29, 2009 onwards, under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 204, paragraph one and Section 224, paragraph one, not from the date of the plaintiff. Payment.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 378/2559.

                According to Civil Code Section 287, Section 287 of the provisions of Section 288 and 289 meaning that. If a preferential or other right is the type of claim that may be released under Section 288, or the debt under Section 289 is enforceable, then the claimant has the right to pursue that provision. Although not exercising their rights or enforcing their rights under such provisions. The lawsuit against the property of the debtor will not be wounded by the privilege or other rights there as follows: Upon the petitioner's request. The petitioner cited in the petition. The claimant is the mortgagee, the plaintiff, the plaintiff. Debt under mortgage agreement is not yet due. The applicant can not use the lawsuit to enforce the mortgage. Ask the court to order the money from the auction by the mortgage to the petitioner. It can be seen that the content of the request is that the petitioner as the creditor mortgagee to exercise the right under Section 287 of the Civil Code Section 287 is not a request for payment by virtue of the mortgage may be mandatory before the creditor. Section 289 of the Civil Code, not even when the petitioner filed a petition. Mortgage that the defendant will be liable to pay the petitioner who will not be paid for mortgage debt under Section 289 paragraph one, but the enforcement of the defendant's property will not wound up the other rights of the petitioner, which is. The third party mortgagor under Section 287 of the Civil and Commercial Code, when the plaintiff is the plaintiff's mortgage disputes, the plaintiff has the right to use under Section 287 and ask for a public auction. The mortgage pool The petitioner has the right to ask for money from the auction under Section 287 of the Civil Code, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 287 of the Civil Code, it is a lawsuit requesting the release of suffering can not be calculated. Money The fee is 200 baht as shown in Table 1 at the end of pt. (2) (a)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15009/2558.

            According to the warnings in the auction. The plaintiff, who is a buyer of the apartment at the auction, is responsible for checking the debt that the owner of the existing apartment owes the outstanding expenses to the defendant and if the plaintiff has to pay to the defendant after the purchase of the disputed apartment. already The plaintiff has a letter to the second defendant issued a letter of guarantee that the plaintiff would pay the central expenses only after the plaintiff bought the disputes from the plaintiff from the date the Enforcement Officer notified the land official to register the land transfer to the plaintiff. Onwards When the two defendants did not reply to the letter that the plaintiff's offer to pay or not. And do not issue a letter of guarantee to the plaintiff. Considered to dispute the plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff sued to issue a certificate of debt relief. Condominium Act 1979, Section 29, paragraph three, stipulates that the manager must issue a certificate of debt relief resulting from expenses under Section 18, with a certificate of debt relief under paragraph two. Co-owner within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the claim and the co-owner has paid the debt resulting from the expenses under Section 18 fully, then the payment of the resulting costs. Seal 18 is an important condition for the issuance of a debt free certificate. If the case does not claim that the owner of the dispute is different and not to damage the defendant. 1 The court will determine that if the expenses are counted to the date the plaintiff purchased the disputes from. The auction, which the owner of the original disputes outstanding to the defendant, the plaintiff to pay the defendant to the first defendant to issue a certificate of debt. Chat features And when the plaintiff's assertion is not clear that the original owner of the apartment to pay different amounts to the defendant or not. The defendant does not issue a letter of guarantee to the plaintiff does not violate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14890/2558.

              Enforcement Officer announced the auction of land title deeds No. 245, the defendant's name is holding a land area of ​​54.6 square meters, there are buildings to be sold is a single storey building, a single 6x12 meters, no registration number. The applicant to buy land with such building. Then the petitioner to the land surveyor. It appears that the house has been planted on the land title deed number 245 only 6x2 meters, so it is considered a single-storey building 6x12 meters in size, according to the official auction notice does not exist, so the seizure of the house auctioned by the Enforcement Officer is. Do not like and violate the provisions of the law. The court has the power to revoke the seizure and auction the land and houses as mentioned in Section 296 of the Civil Code, Section 296, when it appears that the property buyer asked the land official to survey and know that the house is in the land title deed. Part 245, on November 25, 2013, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance on December 3, 2013 within 15 days from the date of knowing the circumstances. Pardon No action taken. Neither ratified after knowing about the enforcement of the lawsuit, the petitioner (the buyer of property) is entitled to file a petition to revoke the enforcement of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 296, paragraph three.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13069/2558.

              The auction of the Enforcement Officer states that the buyer must check the liability and pay the outstanding debts to the condominium entity before transferring the ownership. When the plaintiff bought the apartment, but refused to pay the central expenses and penalties that the owner of the original disputes owed. The two defendants are not required to issue a letter of credit or debt disputes to the plaintiff and the plaintiff can not claim damages from the two defendants.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 12247/2558.

                Although the enforcement of the judgment under the compromise agreement requires that the mortgage property. If not, the debt will be enforced for another property. When the facts are heard. Enforcement Officer of the mortgage of the defendant in the amount of 595,045 baht, and on the plaintiff filed a request to seize the apartment of the defendant, the two defendants are owed under the judgment of 1,346,641.92 baht if the auction of mortgaged property of the defendant 1 to the price. The debt owed by the judgment is sufficient to warrant the seizure of the defendant's apartment 2 to enforce payment. This to the plaintiff. And the plaintiff asked the plaintiff to seize the mortgage property of the defendant, one after the two defendants failed to pay debts under a compromise agreement about 2 years and 6 months, but not sold. Holds that the plaintiff to enforce the mortgage in a timely manner. With the defendant was strictly guarded on October 29, 2012, the property management of the defendant may be delayed. In addition, if the waiting for the auction of the mortgage property of the defendant before the completion of another property. It is almost 10 years since the date of the judgment, causing the plaintiff may lose the right to enforce the case, even though the auction of mortgaged property is not. It is not the fault of the plaintiff. The apartment of the defendant 2 before the sale of the mortgage until the completion of the mortgage and the money is not enough to settle the debt of the second defendant to the auction is not contrary to the law enforcement. The judgment and cause justice to all parties. The plaintiff has the right to seize the apartment of the second defendant when the creditor requested to enforce the case within 10 years from the date of the judgment. Then the Enforcement Officer has the right to execute the case to complete. Even if the 10-year period has expired or not, the creditors of the judgment dismissed the right to enforce the property seized or attached to the case, so the Supreme Court to the plaintiff has the right to seize the apartment of the defendant. In case that the plaintiff has completed the procedure within the time of execution. There is no reason to extend the execution time to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2164/2558.

       Plaintiff to buy the defendant's land from the sale. Marketing of the Enforcement Officer By the plaintiff, the highest bid. The deposit and some parts have already been paid. But the plaintiff can not take possession and benefit. Both defendants still occupy the land. Subsequently, the defendant has filed a petition to withdraw the auction of the land. And the plaintiff sued and dismissed the defendant as two cases. There are problems that need to be resolved in the plaintiff's petition. The plaintiff, the highest bidder at the auction by the court order and paid the price. Some of the power to sue the two defendants or see that the plaintiff is the highest bidder at the auction under the court order. And was allowed to extend the payment until the defendant's request for a revocation of the auction of land disputes reached. It justifies the plaintiff that the plaintiff will have the right to buy property from the sale. Continue to market the court order to the next. As long as the plaintiff has not paid the purchase price of the property under the terms of the auction under the court order, the plaintiff is not the buyer of the property at the auction under the court order. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1330 because the plaintiff may break the contract of auction under the court order. The auction was not successful. The plaintiff has no ownership. No power to sue the two defendants.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 635/2551.

   Auction of mortgaged property by the Enforcement Officer. Consideration of the arbitral tribunal's arguments, orders and judgments. The first and the Appeal Court is a matter that the Enforcement Officer and the Court. According to the powers set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant did not argue that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand There is no reason for the defendant to claim that the whole sale of the Enforcement Officer, including the Court of First Instance and the judgment of the Court of Appeal, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Thai Criminal Court.

The plaintiff is the only creditor under the judgment. Not owned by the property at the auction. The plaintiff is not a seller, which is prohibited to fight the price under Section 512

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7309/2550.

The buyer of the property is an important priority. The auction of the defendant's property in this case, the Enforcement Officer has fulfilled the duty legally. Enforcement Officer announced the auction of the property of the defendant 2 at the Chanthaburi Provincial Administrative Court of 5 times and has the date of appointment to the plaintiff and the defendant know the appointment every time. On July 10, 2002, the plaintiffs and the defendants visited the Chanthaburi Provincial Administrative Office. But not to the Enforcement Officer. The serious negligence of the plaintiff and the defendant. 2 Appeal of the purchaser of property is an argument against the order of the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant know that the plaintiff is scheduled to visit the auction and go to the provincial court. Chanthaburi is scheduled. The plaintiff and the defendant 2 did not ask the defendant's plaintiff about the auction of property of the defendant 2, the defect of the plaintiff and defendant 2, the plaintiff and the defendant will claim that the second defendant misunderstanding that there is no auction at the Court of First Instance. Pick up Can not diagnose Appeal of the buyer of the property is a clear appeal filed under Section 225 paragraph one.

The auction proceeding of the Enforcement Officer must be publicly announced. The opportunity for people interested in fighting the price. To maintain the interests of the highest bidder under Section 513 is not sold to any particular person. The Enforcement Officer auctioned the property of the defendant 2 without closing the notice of sale is located at the provincial law enforcement office. Chanthaburi is different from the auction in other cases. The fact of the auction of the defendant's property is not disclosed in the way that it should be. It affects the decision to enter into the price and the number of fighters. Limited to the contrary to the intentions of the auction to be open to the opportunity. The price is open for the highest price. It can not be considered that the Enforcement Officer of the auction under the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code is a violation of the provisions of Civil Code Section 308. Although this auction will be the fourth sale, which the Department of Civil Law. The Enforcement Officer assumes the price. The maximum bid price, which is not less than 50% of the appraised value or the price of the commission or the Sub-committee on pricing of property, is the price that should be sold. When the Enforcement Officer to enforce the law violated the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code Division 4, 2 on the enforcement of the order or sentence. The court will have the power to order the revocation of the auction is not in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 296, paragraph two.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3231/2550.

Appeal of the defendant that the serious negligence of the negligence of selling property at an unduly low price, appealed on the issue of the request for revocation of the auction by virtue of Section 309, paragraph two of the Civil and Commercial Code. It is the most under the Civil Code Section 309 bis paragraph four, which was amended from January 9, 2005 onwards, without any distinction. The provisions of this Act shall not be applicable to cases filed before the date on which this Act comes into force. Therefore, binding force to apply immediately.

A public auction with only one bidder. Not a matter for requesting the revocation of the auction by virtue of the Civil Code Section 309 bis paragraph two, but the issue requested the revocation of the auction by another reason, according to Civil Code Section 296 paragraph two, which is not. In the enforcement of Section 309 bis, there is no law providing that the order of the court of first instance under paragraph two of this Section shall be final. In case there is no law, there must be a contestant in the auction, so even if the auction of the property, the case will be the buyer of the property for only one price. Enforcement Officer to proceed to the auction by the likes.

Civil Code Section 306, Enforcement Officer Enforcement of the auction date to stakeholders. In the enforcement of the property to be auctioned, which is known by registration or otherwise. This case, the Enforcement Officer auctioned the property of the defendant 2 is not the property of the defendant, the first defendant is not a stakeholder in the enforcement of the property. auction Enforcement Officer must not notify the defendant to the auction date, the defendant is not entitled to request the revocation of the auction by reason of such.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8694/2549.

The Enforcement Officer announced the auction of property by setting conditions for entering the price and promised. The buyer must pay the remaining amount within 15 days from the date of purchase onwards. The period of 15 days for the buyer to pay the remaining amount to pay the contract for a period of time to Repayment Is not the age of the law that the parties will agree to abstain or expand or collapse under the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/11 that the Enforcement Officer and the buyer agreed to extend the deposit period. The remaining one is to find a violation of the provisions of Section 510 and 515, so there is no legal grounds for the court to order the revocation of the order and the auction of the. Whether the task force case Such a case. The court would like to have the defendant's motion to file a motion without having to file a motion.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 417/2549.

The fact that the petitioner does not appear that the petitioner has a request to the Enforcement Officer while entering the price and buy the land that the land will be developed for profit when, which will make the delayed transfer of land will cause the petitioner to lose. Business benefits that the land is no benefit to the singer. In case the Enforcement Officer is not aware of such matter.

The auction of property under the court order, the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code gives the opportunity to stakeholder opposition to the auction. The applicant must know that the buyer of the property from the auction may not immediately transfer ownership of the property. There may be an objection to the auction. The case is not subject to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 388 will be considered successful, but with repayment within the time of the auction and the case in the floor of the opposition to the auction. Petition The order to revoke the auction, which will make the transfer of land to the petitioner becomes impossible under Section 219.

Auction of property by court order The price of the fight will be out of the price of their fight, but when someone else fight the price. Or the withdrawal of the property at the auction. But the case of the petitioner is the subject of the highest bidder and the buyer of the property at the auction. The applicant can not raise the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 514 claims to be released from the commitment or termination of the contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4241/2545.

According to the Ministry of Justice, the enforcement of the Enforcement Officer Clause 85 requires the buyer to pay immediately. Unless the property is priced from 1,000 baht or more The officer may grant a buyer a security deposit of not more than 25% of the purchase price and make an agreement to use the overdue payment within not more than 15 days, it appears that the petitioner has complied with all regulations. Complete The Official Receiver can not transfer the property to the auctioneer for the defendant because the defendant filed a request to withdraw the auction. The petitioner will receive a refund of the amount of 2,090,000 baht, the rest is the money that the petitioner paid is part of the total price. It is not a deposit placed on the purchase of assets from the auction. When the Court of Appeal ruled that the request to revoke the auction of the defendant. The petitioner is responsible for bringing back the amount of property purchased back to the amount of 2,090,000. The payment to the Official Receiver and transfer the ownership of the land purchased. If the petitioner does not bring the money to pay the official receiver for a specified period. The claimant is wrongly liable for payment of the price of the missing part. If the new auction price is lower than the bidder's bid under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 516 of the Official Receiver. The money is 110,000 baht to secure the price of the new auction. The applicant has no right to terminate the contract and ask for a refund of 110,000 Baht.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7038/2543.

This case, even if the buyer of the auction will pay the excess amount of time when the Enforcement Officer in the definition. However, when considering the order of the enforcement department, together with the land sale contract between the buyer and the enforcement officer. It is not compulsory that if the buyer fails to pay the price within the time limit, then the contract of sale of land shall be deemed to be terminated immediately or the purchaser shall have the right to buy the land dispute and the deposit shall be forfeited. However, it is at the discretion of the Director-General of the Enforcement Department. When the Deputy Director-General of the Legal Execution Department acts on behalf of the Director-General of the Legal Execution Department at that time, the order approves the memorandum of the Enforcement Officer, who should accept the remaining money from the buyer. And the buyer has paid the full price. Equivalent to the buyer of the property was paid in full, like the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 515, he would have the right to dispute the land under Section 1330 when the land was purchased. And the Department of Highways has paid the land and buildings compensation to the Central Bureau of Execution. The buyer of the property shall be entitled to such compensation.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1947/2542.

Notice of Enforcement Officer of the auction. Land has been identified as land for sale land, land survey page, land deed number, land area where the defendant's name. Be a proprietor The space is based on deed length. Of land on all four sides Including a list of four landowners. With identified as empty car access has been identified See the map at the end. With the warning that the buyer. The tax on the area of ​​the tax with the type and status of the property. Not guaranteed and not responsible. It is the duty of the buyer to be. To inspect the place manually as follows: Announcement Enforcement Officer The details of the land to sell to the case, if the buyer has doubts or want to know details. What more? It can check the condition of the land as well. The evidence of the government before the auction. The notice of the announcement of the auction of the land of the Enforcement Officer. And the petitioner has bought the notice of the Enforcement Officer to see the details of the location of the land where the Enforcement Officer announced the auction with the petitioner, drive the car to see the land, see the other land, which is about 150 meters away from the road, according to the map. It is understood that the land. The plaintiff informed the auctioneer when the petitioner announced that the auction of land disputes from December. 1994 until the auction of land for nearly 6 months, the petitioner has time to thoroughly inspect the land, the applicant did not inspect the land. Land at the auction Good before auction. It is the fault of the singer. According to the Enforcement Officer, the buyer has indicated that the area. Type and condition of property Enforcement Officer does not endorse and is not responsible for the duty of the buyer to check the premises manually. I can not hear that. Enforcement Officer to enforce the case by violating the provisions. The law of execution of the petitioner can not be requested. Revocation of the auction.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2846/2541.

A copy of the land title document signed by the Enforcement Officer. The plaintiff used as evidence to take the land dispute and put out the auction does not appear to have a mortgage. Because the defendant led the land dispute to the mortgage after copying. But before the enforcement of the Enforcement Officer announced the auction of land disputes without obligation. The bidder was purchased at a price higher than the government appraised price 3-7 times. The claimant did not know the land dispute before the mortgage. And the Enforcement Officer announced the auction of land under the copy of Miss. 3 a. Without a mortgage and the Court of First Instance has an order to allow the defendant to sell property, even if the auction. Code of Civil Procedure Section 308 Civil and Commercial Code, Section 510 is that the buyer who is buying property must comply with the advertising, sales and other matters, which the Enforcement Officer announced before the fight price. But the Enforcement Officer announced the auction of land disputes without a mortgage. The announcement is binding on the Enforcement Officer. And not the duty of the buyer, the buyer must check whether the land dispute is mortgage or not, so the Court of First Instance allowed the Enforcement Officer to auction the land dispute, according to a copy of Miss. It was a mistake. In case of failure to comply with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to ensure fairness in the enforcement of the case, the court shall have the power to order the revocation of the auction of property in accordance with the Code. Civil Procedure Section 27

Judgment of the Supreme Court 957/2540.

According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 156, paragraph two of the Criminal Code, which is the essence of the act to make the act null and void. It must be a mistake in the nature of legal acts in the person who is a partner of the juristic act. And in the property which is the object of jurisprudence. The claimant did not understand the importance of the auction of property by mortgage, so it is not important under the law. Is the property auctioned by a mortgage? The details of the auction, which the petitioner already knows. The announcement of the auction of the Enforcement Officer. Act of purchase of property from the auction of the petitioner. So not void

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5992/2539.

The money purchased by the buyer to the Court of First Instance on the auction of property is the money that the buyer of the property using the auction price under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 515, such money is not owned by the buyer from the date. The buyer of the property to the court, even if the defendant will file a petition that the auction is not lawful, but the Court of Appeal is the best. When the auction is lawful when the property is transferred to the seller of the property, such money is used to pay the price on the date the money was placed to the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance ordered the revocation of the auction when the lawsuit. The amount is not returned to the ownership of the buyer.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4596/2539.

The auction is still complete when the market leader expresses the agreement by knocking the wood. But it only makes the fighters can not withdraw their price fight as provided in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 509, only with Section 515. The highest bidder is obliged to use the price in cash when the transaction is complete and in Section 516 it is further provided that if the highest bidder fails to use the price, then the property is sold out again. If the net amount is not worth the price and the market price. The price of the original fighter is the responsibility. But if you sell the net amount is higher than the price of the original price of the original price. I have to have a higher refund to the fight for the same price. So even the Enforcement Officer has knocked the wood in the auction of the land and the building of the defendant to the petitioner, but the defendant has filed a petition to the court to cancel the auction, which is an argument about the auction. Until the Supreme Court ruled on the verdict of the Court of Appeal to lift the defendant's claim on March 17, 2537, making such arguments to the utmost. The applicant paid full payment on April 1, 1994. The auction was completed on that date. When the auction was unfinished on the date the Woodpecker handed over to the three complainants. On September 5, 1990, the three claimants did not have ownership of the land together with the building, ownership of the land and the building continued. Belongs to the defendant The defendant shall have the right to interest in the land.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8345/2538.

The applicant is the bidder to buy the right to lease the commercial building at the price of 1,940,000 baht, the applicant has paid the full price on the day of auction and the Department has enforced a letter to the Civil Court to register the transfer of the lease of the commercial building to the petitioner. Then the transaction was completed and is still in the process of registration of the transfer of the lease, but the defendant requested to cancel the leg. The Enforcement Officer's market was suspended for the court order and the defendant paid for the purchase of leasehold rights for commercial buildings, with the remaining money of 5% of the purchase price of Baht 97,000. The new auction is available to other people at a price of 2,320,000 baht, which is higher than the bidder's price. In case there is no damage, the petitioner will be liable under the rules of the dog. Civil and Commercial Section 516 without any damage to the petitioner will be liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 516 enforcement department is not entitled to confiscate this amount, so this money must be refunded to the petitioner.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2690/2537.

The highest bidder in the auction, the former neglected to deposit money for the purchase of property until the defendant must be re-auctioned and the net worth is not worth the price and the auction price is the same. The original price will be liable in the absence of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 516, and the action of the MP can be regarded as a dispute over the rights of the plaintiff. Civil law under the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 55 is not the right or the power of the argument is not official. The Enforcement Officer filed a letter to the Court of First Instance asking to issue a seized property sued by the SEC is considered a request to enforce the case under Civil Procedure Code Section 271, which the requestor must be a creditor under the judgment, and must have a verdict. Of the court, The debtor before the judgment. The Enforcement Officer is only a court official in order to enforce the case, but has no authority to become a stakeholder or a partner in any way. Enforcement Officer has no authority to issue a warrant for seizure of assets. I do not have a lawsuit.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7017/2537.

The objections have been made by auctioning the land of the debtor, with the terms of the sale being that the objections to the first price will be 11,400,000 baht and the fighters will have to bid up the price of 100,000 baht each time the bidder fight. The opponent will quote the price and count one to three times. If a fighter gives a higher price, it will quote the price and count a third or four times. The price of each protestant will be recorded as evidence, and read to the price of the purchase. If there is no price, it will count two or three times to wait for higher prices. If there is no price. The objection will stop the price and then submit to the director of the auction and consider whether to approve the sale. When there are any orders, the objections will be fulfilled. In the case of an order approving the sale, the objectionist will count 3 and knock the wood without the opportunity for another price. It is the advertisement that sells the objection. The fight for Eผdim The buyer is bound in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 510 when the opposition to open the auction is always. The buyer of the property has bid higher and higher until the buyer bids at 12,100,000 baht, the opposition has quoted the price and counted to 2. Then it turns out that no one is fighting the price higher, the opposition has stopped the price. Then propose to the director of the auction to consider. At this point, the bidder raised the price to 12,200,000 baht, but the opposition did not agree to fight the price, and then counted 3 and knocked the wood to the buyer of the property as approved for sale by the director. Auction As such, the action of the objection is like a law. The singer offered to fight higher prices in the meantime. The price war after the expiration of the opposition to advertise the opportunity to fight. The price of such fight is not legal and does not cause the auction to continue bidding. Otherwise, the auction may be extended to endless. The auction of property in bankruptcy case or in other cases. The results must be the same. This is to be sold to both creditors and debtors as well as people with related interests. When there are no arguments that the auction. The opposition to auction the property at a price lower than the market price. There is no need to raise the claim that the auction is not for the benefit of creditors and debtors who will cause the auction to be canceled. The auction of the objection is like it.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2195/2535.

According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 515, the buyer of the property at the auction is obliged to use the price when the deal. By the time specified in the advertisement, the sale or the agreed contract, the Enforcement Officer has set the terms of the sale behind the announcement that the auction. Upon acceptance of the purchase, the buyer must pay at least 25% of the purchase price and contract the use of the overdue payment within 15 days and the contract signed by the buyer of the property to the plaintiff after the purchase of property. And then that. The remaining money will be paid to the Court of First Instance within 15 days from the date of this contract. The buyer is obliged to comply with the contract. Although the defendant will appeal against the request to promote the new market. The buyer must pay the remaining amount of money to pay. Will be paid after the Court of Appeal did not judge.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 768/2535.

The plaintiff sought the money placed on the purchase of property from the auction before the return. According to the auction notice, the Enforcement Officer set the terms of sale. When to buy. Buyer must pay immediately. If the land or property is priced from 10,000 baht or more, the Enforcement Officer may allow the buyer to deposit money at least 25 percent of the purchase price and contract the use of the overdue payment with the storage costs within 15 And it is not reported by the Enforcement Officer as a deposit as follows: the plaintiffs placed in the purchase of property before the repayment. One of the purchase price is not a deposit. When the plaintiff breached the contract to pay the remaining price. The court did not order the confiscation. And at the auction after the plaintiff is the buyer of the original price. The plaintiff paid more fees and paid the full price. No damage. Therefore, the plaintiff must return all the money. Because of the auction after the plaintiff did not pay the price within the time limit. The plaintiff is the party that has to pay the fees in any process that has gone unnecessarily. This is the responsibility of the court.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5388/2534.

The bidder is the highest bidder at the auction. And contract The contract is to pay the remaining 15 days from the contract date, then the petitioner has filed a statement to postpone the remaining money. The court allowed the postponement of the deposit for only seven days to extend the repayment period under the contract to the petitioner, which the court of first instance is authorized to do. Because the auction is done by order of the court. It is not a matter that does not hold the time is important, except the Court of First Instance has an order to allow the extension of time, then there is another order that if not paid to the Enforcement Officer to enforce the contract. Make it So when the petitioner does not pay within the extended period, the petitioner is called the default. The right to buy property dispute. And the Enforcement Officer will have to forfeit the money that the petitioner has placed by the Court of First Instance must order that the petitioner breach the contract. The order for the money that the petitioner has paid in any way.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3670/2534.

The buyer of the auctioned property of the Enforcement Officer requests the court to extend the remaining payment time. And ask for money as a part of the damage. Then returned some deposits already paid, claiming that the defendants had objected to the auction, requesting the revocation of the sale. The case is under consideration. The court asked the court to discontinue execution of the case to prevent damage to property buyers. Enforcement Officer may also not be able to present a report requesting the Court to notify the Land Registration Officer to transfer the ownership of the land to the purchaser of the property. Because the dispute about the auction has not reached the end. It is also unaware that the court will decide whether the auction is lawful. As a matter of fact, the court will order the suspension of payment of the deficit. Until the disputes about the auction are reached. If it is appropriate to order a refund of the deposit to the buyer of some of the property, but only partially. Then send the order to the Enforcement Officer to continue to operate. Section 292 (2)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5242/2533.

The auction of property dispute at all times. Enforcement Officer does not set the conditions for bidders to know the price before the auction, when the highest bidder will be counted one to three before knocking the sale agreement, but the Enforcement Officer used the method proposed to the Court of First Instance is the seller. When the Court of First Instance allowed the sale, it agreed to sell it. If the Court of First Instance does not allow it, it will announce the new auction, so when the District Court allowed the sale of property dispute to the plaintiff, the highest bidder. The auction is full. At the auction of property dispute. Enforcement Officer does not violate the provisions of the enforcement of the judgment. When the highest bidder has reported the court to consider that. Should sell to the highest bidder? When there is no circumstance, the court finds that the auction of property at this auction. As a result, the sale order has been sold to the highest bidder. The auction is complete and the defendant will be asked to cancel the sale and the new auction.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2316/2533.

The auctioneer is one of the auctioneers, and then submitted to the Deputy Director General for approval to sell at the highest bidder. If there are any orders, it is strictly prohibited. To comply with the order of the Director General of the Enforcement Department. And the plaintiff knows the order. Selling or other message that the seller announced before the sale of specific property under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 510, and although not yet three, it is contrary to the Ministry of Justice. Enforcement of the Enforcement Officer Act, 1979, No. 83. Not because the regulation begins with the message "normal", indicating that it is not enforced. Therefore, when the Deputy Director General has an order for sale, then the agreement may be agreed upon or obeyed. Even the plaintiff will ask for the price by the three counts. But the Enforcement Officer does not allow, and has counted three with knock wood, it's a public auction.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2973/2532.

 Enforcement Officer of the land and buildings of the defendant 2 auctioned. The applicant is an auctioneer for the property when the applicant to register the transfer of land ownership of the petitioner, the land tax collector from the petitioner. The applicant has paid the income tax from the auction of real estate and the stamp duty to the land officer. When the announcement of the auction of real estate that the bidder did not buy the condition that the buyer is a taxpayer. The applicant is not obliged to pay income tax at the auction. And the right to receive the payment of income tax return, deducted from the proceeds from the auction. The stamp duty has set the conditions for the auction, the buyer must pay the fee itself, and according to the letter of the Court of First Instance notified the landowner to transfer the ownership of land and building to the petitioner, stating that the stamp duty to sell the petition to the petitioner. So the petitioner is not entitled to receive the stamp duty refund.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3614/2532.

 The plaintiff failed to pay the plaintiff's land is a buyer of the auction. I must re-auction the land several times. In the meantime, a fire broke out. The land price has decreased. The plaintiff is liable for the price of land in the absence of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 516

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1300/2531.

Auction of property by court order The price of the fight will be out of the price, which they fight, while others fight the price up. Or when the property is removed from the market under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 514 when the petitioner is the highest bidder. The Court of First Instance has an order authorizing the seller to petition. The auction is full. Even the defendant will have appealed to the Court of First Instance to allow the auction of the defendant's property. And the Court of First Instance allowed the petitioner not to pay the outstanding amount against the refund that the petitioner placed in court to the petitioner. The only way to do this is to use the cost of buying property until the case is finally reached. The cause for the claimant is not at the highest price that he did not fight when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant to sell the property of the defendant. The applicant must use all unpaid costs. When the singer ignored the price. The Court of First Instance ordered that the property be sold at a new auction. If net money is not worth the price and the original price of the auction. The applicant is liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 516

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1734 - 1735/2529.

The Enforcement Officer shall have the power to act as the creditor representative in order to receive the debt owed or seized on the property of the debtor, the auctioneer shall pay the amount of debt in the judgment and the court fees to the creditor under the judgment, if the remaining money is returned to the debtor according to the judgment. At the auction, the Enforcement Officer has the power to impose on the fighter to place a cash deposit and to be confiscated. When the advertiser told the seller to tell the market before the fight, the price that if the highest bidder does not pay the price, the court officer can ask the court to allow the sale of low-priced fighters. Next, such a requirement would be contrary to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 516.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1121/2523.

The Director General of the Department of Execution has ordered that. The receipt of money from the auction at the discretion of the director of seizure, freeze and dispose of property in order to receive a personal check or not, even in the announcement of the auction will be scheduled to pay in cash before 15 pm, but it is obtained. This means that the bank notes must always be paid when the director seizes and disposes of the property, using the discretion of the plaintiff to check his identity even at 15 pm and some. It has paid It is done by the likes.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3492/2526.

        The Civil Procedure Code, Section 309, At the auction, the property has many things together. To separate one thing at a time. However, it empowers the Enforcement Officer to sell two or more properties. Sell ​​it together. When it is expected that sales revenue will increase because of that.

Enforcement Officer announced the auction of two defendant's land plots together. If the defendant considers that it should be sold separately. Defendant would like to petition under Section 309 paragraph, the defendant will raise this argument as the objection when the auction is complete and can not find.

Prior to the auction, the highest bidder did not place a bid on the condition. Auction New The auction after the price even lower than the previous sale. The court allowed the sale to the highest bidder in the latter. And do not hold that the defendant was damaged. Because the price is low or absent, the highest bidder in the previous sale is also liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 516.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2162/2514.

        At the auction, the property to pay the penalty for breach of insurance contract has three items, including property dispute. Enforcement Officer to advertise the sale to the public open to the public. Time sale of two other items that have a price of 2-3 people, but when selling property dispute, there is only one fighter. When no one else is fighting for a higher price. This price alone is named as the highest price. The court will allow this price to be sold to the fighter when deemed appropriate. Even if there is only one fighter, it will be considered the auction of the property dispute. Not in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 513, 514 can not find.

Posted in: