Section 650 loan for consumption is a contract which the lender uses to transfer property of an end to the amount due to the borrower. And the borrower agrees to return the property to the same type as the type and amount of property which they lend.
This agreement must be on delivering the borrowed property.
Section 651 court fees for contracting it. Delivery and return the property to borrow it. It falls to the borrower is free.
Section 652 if the contract is scheduled to return property to the borrower. Notice to the lender to the borrower to return the property within a reasonable time. Under which the notice of the time.
Section 653 loans for over two thousand more than that. If there is no evidence of the loan as one signed by the borrower is important. The court can not be sued.
The loans have a book. You will serve as proof of payment only when there is no evidence either in writing signed by the lender to show or documentary evidence of borrowing which has been expropriated. Placed into a document or withdraw it.
Section 654 prohibits a person less than fifteen percent interest per year. If the contract is in excess of the interest. It fell to a fifteen percent per year.
Section 655 are prohibited from charging interest on unpaid interest. But when the interest payable not less than one year. The parties will agree to loan the interest is compounded with the principal, the interest amount is folded into it. However, such agreements shall be in writing.
The tradition of trading in the account from the compounding interest. In trade and other such like this. What are the provisions which are not mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Section 656 if the loan agreement. And agree that any loans or other assets as the amount of the gem. If you think a debt owed by the amount equal to the price of goods or property on the market at the time and place of delivery.
If the loan agreement. And lenders agree to remove any copyright or other obligations for borrowed money soon. Suspension of debt payments because of that. You shall be an amount equal to the market price of the goods or property at the time and place of delivery.
Any agreement contrary to this statement. That void.
Supreme Court to 145/2553.
The plaintiff's complaint stated that The defendant entered into an agreement to borrow money from the plaintiff, it must be evidence that Section 653 of the loan book is one sign. The borrower is important. And the provisions P.wi.p. Section 94 (b) the plaintiff's testimony or the claim is otherwise beyond. The loan agreement so that the plaintiff has no claim under the loan contract that says to do in Bangkok. Metropolitan is false. In fact, the office of the plaintiff in the jurisdiction of the Court. It is alleged that a contract can not attest to modify the loan. In most cases, the information indicating the intention of the parties. Therefore prohibited by the provisions.
In essence, the loan is delivered and the contract or written evidence that the plaintiff may withdraw funds from any bank or lending money to the defendant. Borrowing money is not significant in any way, and according to the complaint, the plaintiff and the defendant in a bank savings account that is local. Defendant is domiciled in the contract. That plaintiff is not entitled to transfer to the defendant because the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw it. The defendant paid the plaintiff will be required to withdraw the loan from the bank, the Bank shall be deemed to take delivery of the money borrowed. The case was brought against a defendant domiciled in one area while doing. Specified in the contract and loan agreement as a contract loan.
Supreme Court in 9189/2552.
Other creditors to seize land Enforcement Officer mortgaged to the plaintiff, the defendant sold fried. Market to pay the verdict. The plaintiff filed a petition for a mortgage loan. The court ordered the plaintiff to obtain a mortgage loan of 400,000 baht and interest under the mortgage from the proceeds from the auction of the mortgaged property before. At the request of the plaintiff and other creditors. The plaintiff is entitled to enforce payment by court order already. When the defendant did not owe the plaintiff and the mortgage debt. The plaintiff to bring a defendant to make the mortgage loan agreement and the positive Interest rates than would be legal. The interest on the part of the void by the defendant did not receive payments under the loan. Such money in any way. Loan agreement, no debt, the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked the court to compel the defendant to pay the debt under the loan agreement did not.
Supreme Court to 690/2552.
Agreement to fund training abroad, the defendant first having to return to the plaintiff for a period of 3 years or pay the penalty at three times the number of charges, the defendant first must pay back with interest rates. 15 per cent per year, a defendant can choose whether to return to the claimant or reimburse the cost of training. Plaintiff returned to training with a penalty three times the amount to be paid back. 3 times the penalty provision is not a requirement that a defendant will be more burdensome than the predictable routine. The plaintiff sent the defendant a training only 14 days (including day 2 days) estimated the cost of training 300,000 plaintiffs to pay for the training of the defendants 1 to 223,871.70 USD terms to the defendant. is a need to work with the plaintiff, the plaintiff in the position and function for up to three years to allow a defendant to bear than to be expected as normal. Is effective for only one year as a fair and reasonable to the Act on Unfair Terms Act 2540, Section 5, the rate is 15 percent per year. The interest rate on the extent to which Section 654 provisions and the Central Labour Court has reduced the rate to 7.5 percent per year, so it does not make that a defendant will have to bear more than expected normally.
Supreme Court in 6236/2551.
Contract, loan funds and urban villages that. If the borrower fails to pay the loan and interest payment within the prescribed period. The borrower agrees to charge default interest at the rate of increase at 0.50 per cent of total outstanding loans to be paid until the end. The defendants consented to the plaintiff's interest rate increases. Higher than the rate agreed in the contract if the defendant fails to pay the debt to be contracted, it is a penalty if the court considers that it has exceeded the power is decreasing. A reasonable amount according to Section 379 and Section 383 paragraph one.
Agreements and urban housing fund loan interest rate is the rate of 12 percent per year, which does not exceed 15 percent per year, not prohibited by Section 654 and Act no. The interest rate under Section 3 of the 2475 agreement, the plaintiff interest at a rate of 0.50 per cent on a pre-determined compensation in the event the defendant fails to make payments under the contract have been characterized as a penalty. Yes, it is agreement on the interest rate exceeds 15 percent per year, so it does not violate Section 654 and Section 2475 shall not exceed the rate of interest that 3 is not void.
Supreme Court in 8175/2551.
Proof of payment as provided in Section 653 that may occur during or after the time the loan. It is not limited to the evidence that was given to each other. Although the defendant testified as a witness in criminal court that the defendant's loan. Money from the plaintiff will be held after the loan and the delivery provided that it is considered that the loan between the defendant and the plaintiff in the case where there is evidence in writing so that when the defendant does not have proof of payment in writing. one sign. Plaintiff to show the lender. The defendant did not serve as proof of payment. Because it is prohibited under the laws listed above.
Supreme Court in 6414/2551.
Defendants are officials of the Department of National Education Commission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was assigned to the training of school employees. Educational reform. The defendant borrowed from the plaintiff to be used in training the employees of the school reform Such a study. As a matter of public duty. Contract to lend money as just one step in the performance of official duties of the defendant is not a loan based on 9 of the Civil and Commercial Code, and may not apply to provisions in the ninth as the laws of the nearby it can be.
Supreme Court in 7160/2551.
The repayment of the loan agreement has resulted in the debt extinguished. The evidence required to withdraw a document which is the subject of the loan. Investigate the use of funds under Section 653, paragraph two, it's a different case. The revocation is not placed into the document as proof of payment can not be considered. That no such payment.
Supreme Court in 1783/2551.
The issuance of promissory notes. And its 16 percent interest rate per annum as agreed by Section 911, 968 (1) of Section 985, the law does not place any restrictions on the parties may agree. It is not a loan within the meaning of Act not to exceed the rate of interest at the rate specified in the promissory note at 16 percent per year, it's not the case, the interest rate which would be an offense under the Act and do not require. prohibited by Section 654, according to promissory notes and interest to sue is not void.
Supreme Court in 6474/2551.
To consider the complaint of the plaintiff that the defendant intends to repay the debt, what is required. Consider the entire contents of the complaint filed with the documents is important. But not the words or only part of the indictment, which followed. The plaintiff sued the defendant is the plaintiff wants a loan under the loan agreement and promissory note at a time. When the two defendants did not deny the debt on the loan, so even to listen to the testimony of both defendants claim that the promissory notes. Terminate the fund. Both defendants were still liable for the debt by borrowing against the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 6823/2551.
Attest to the defendant to pay the loan back to the plaintiff. A. The defendant gave the plaintiff bank's ATM to withdraw money from the defendant's account every month. And that the plaintiff has been such an ATM card to withdraw money from the account of the defendant. It held that the creditors accept the settlement and another settlement was agreed upon in accordance with Section 321 shall not prohibit a defendant to bring witnesses to court or how to pay it. them. Treated like any Not in force only as a Section 653 paragraph two.
Supreme Court in 1783/2551.
The issuance of promissory notes. And its 16 percent interest rate per annum as agreed by Section 911, 968 (1) of Section 985, the law does not place any restrictions on the parties may agree. It is not a loan within the meaning of Act not to exceed the rate of interest at the rate specified in the promissory note at 16 percent per year, it's not the case, the interest rate which would be an offense under the Act and do not require. prohibited by Section 654, according to promissory notes and interest to sue is not void.
Supreme Court in 1883/2551.
Section 653 Civil and Commercial Code shall apply to the evidence of the loan in writing and signed by the borrower to sue them in court without evidence, in writing, shall state the date of the contract. Date of maturity and the interest rate.
The loan was made. The authors have filled the amount of the loan amount that the plaintiff had agreed to meet. The defendant's signature on the loan. The plaintiff brought a legal action to recover the money. To enter other This is done without the consent of the defendant is not mentioned at all. It does not make a claim, the evidence is on the defendant and forced them to lose. The loan is not fraudulent documents.
Supreme Court in 5298/2551.
Civil Code Procedure Section 4 (1) states that the indictment be presented to the court that the defendant is domiciled in the district court. Or to the court that the case was in court that the defendant is not domiciled in India. Kingdom, or that the case was referred to as the source of the argument that the plaintiff has the right to sue. When the plaintiff credit personal loans at the office of the plaintiff to the defendant. Under the jurisdiction of the District Court Rd. The defendant's breach of contract without payment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been damaged. I can see why as the source of its counterclaims that the plaintiff has sued. The defendant caused the plaintiff's office where the loan to the defendant. Which are within the jurisdiction of the district court that the plaintiff has the Pathumwan Princess Hotel Pathumwan District Court heard the case against them. Under the provisions of that law. The defendant used the telephone for a personal loan to the defendant. The facilities provided to the defendant, the only customer. I brought it up at the office of the plaintiff to do.
Plaintiff is a legal non-financial companies. We do not have the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand Criteria and conditions for conducting business for personal loans. Non-financial businesses, so the interest is required under the provisions of Section 654 and Section 2475 do not exceed the rate of interest referred to in Section 3 shall not bear interest. More than 15 percent per year, even though the plaintiff would benefit under the contract is the first time. Usage Fee and separately from the normal interest charged by the title. Be different. However, benefits such as compensation to the plaintiff from the defendant to the plaintiff borrows money so it is the first time and fees for such facilities. The interest on the loan agreement. Plaintiff received benefits under such an interest. The first time. Usage Fee and the interest charged monthly. The calculation of the principal and interest that is calculated in advance for 2 years, defendants must repay the principal and interest to the plaintiff by the same amount every month. The defendant shall pay interest is not reduced in proportion to the amount reduced. The fixed interest rate (Flat rate) when calculating the interest rate (Effective rate) which exceeds the rate of 15 percent per year, in violation of the provisions of Section 654, and Log. . Do not exceed the interest rate of 2475 Section 3 deals with the benefits of the loan agreement in respect of the interest. All the void. The plaintiff is not entitled to interest at the rate of the defendants. The deduction of service fees charged to the first plaintiff from the proceeds. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff under the contract. The problem is with the law on public order. The Supreme Court has the power to lift up the diagnosis.
(Meeting No. 3 / 2550).
Supreme Court in 4698/2551.
Tech. The defendant's three plaintiff loan of U.S. $ 2 million settlement with the land and house as collateral. The three defendants agreed to make the sale, according to the wishes of the plaintiff's done. Pay a transaction. The redemption value of U.S. $ 3.5 million and interest on the interest in advance of 300,000 when not provided by law, the legal sale of an interest together. In addition, plaintiff's own testimony to that. Contact for the plaintiff loans. We hear that the contract is a legal sale of loans with hidden land. The settlement house as collateral. So the law relating to loan transactions under Section 155 is applicable to the disputed land and the house is still owned by the three defendants. The plaintiff is not entitled to sue the defendants drove three.
Supreme Court in 1883/2551.
Mata 653 Civil and Commercial Code shall apply to the evidence of the loan in writing and signed by the borrower is. Claim in court and without that evidence, in writing, must specify the date. Months of the contract. Date of maturity and the interest rate.
The loan was made. The authors have filled the amount of the loan amount that the plaintiff had agreed to meet. The defendant's signature on the loan. The plaintiff brought a legal action to recover the money. To enter other This is done without the consent of the defendant is not mentioned at all. It does not make a claim, the evidence is, and force it to the defendant. It is lost. The loan is not fraudulent documents.
Supreme Court in 1128/2551.
The court appointed a trustee of the plaintiff, the two together, but Sun does not mean that the duties of a trustee under Section 1726 will be co-trustee or co. to sign all legal documents. The plaintiff is a sign the letter to debt as creditors and the trustee solely by the second plaintiff, a trustee, another site must be considered together, and heritage management. With the debt, they do not contract a debt in writing the book made by the debtor, creditors agree that they owe it. The creditor can require a party does not. The debt on the books is a book made by the two defendants that they owed the plaintiff a loan Sat Ehgamrdk as trustee of the Sun is not signed with a signing only. Letter to the debt is valid and enforceable under the laws of the two defendants who have admitted debt.
Supreme Court to 142/2550.
Agreement that requires that. If the borrower fails to pay the plaintiff's debt to the lender when the Sun contract was due to land disputes to the MP immediately repay the loan by the plaintiff's attorney shall be signed by not adhering to fill the Sun. is guaranteed, regardless of land disputes that are equal to market prices at the time and place for the transfer of title or registration period. The agreement was contrary to Section 656 paragraph two shall be null and void under Article 656, paragraph three.
Supreme Court in 6624/2550.
Lending by Financial Institutions Act and Section 4 The Minister of Finance, with the advice of the Bank of Thailand shall have power to set interest rates that financial institutions may charge their loan or a loan or not. The loan is higher than the rate of fifteen percent per annum and the interest rate prescribed under Section 6 of Article 4, Section 654 of the Civil and Commercial Code shall apply to the interest of the institution. Finance Minister under Section 4 of the plaintiff is a banking institution pursuant to Section 3 (2) of the Act, interest on loans to financial institutions. The fact that the plaintiff is a financial institution that the Minister of Finance, the interest rate of loans to the plaintiff more than 15 percent per year, or a dispute of fact on the issue directly. Ministry of Finance on the financial institution may charge interest from the borrower. That the plaintiff interest at a rate that exceeds the rate of 15 percent per year, is evidence of significant issues important in the case that the plaintiff is required to attest. The plaintiff's witnesses testified that The interest and the interest rate under the mortgage loan and the plaintiff to sue as required by the Bank and the Bank of the plaintiff. I sent the Ministry of Finance on the financial institution may charge interest from the borrower. Bank of Thailand annexed it. Held that the plaintiff can attest to the Ministry of Finance said.
Although plaintiff may not claim the Ministry of Finance said in a witness in violation of the provisions of Section 88 of P.wi.p. Although announced as official documents of the defendant and the general public can be sure to have true and correct them without a struggle. Plaintiffs allege that the documents submitted during the hearing the plaintiff. When the Court has shifted to the plaintiff's witnesses have finished calling witnesses the defendant. Defendants have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and examine documents and the plaintiff's evidence attest to refute the plaintiff's evidence. The defendant was not able to fight the case. The date of the hearing the defendant. The witnesses said the defendant did not doubt the interest of justice, the court has jurisdiction to hear the Ministry of Finance under Section 87 when the defendant does not P.wi.p. objection to the existence and authenticity of the Ministry of Finance said. Get the facts. Minister of Finance announced the interest rates that financial institutions may charge a borrower pursuant to Section 4, then the plaintiff is a financial institution under the Ministry of Finance, the Minister said. Section 654 of the Civil and Commercial Code do not apply to the interest of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to charge interest rates exceeding 15 percent per year.
Supreme Court in 5480/2550.
Even if the plaintiff is a commercial bank in the interest rate does not fall under the provisions of Section 654, but the interest of the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 14 of the Banking Act, under which the Bank issued a commercial bank in terms of interest and discounts. The plaintiff was issued, interest rates and discounts apply. If the defendant's interest of the plaintiff in force at the time the defendant entered into a loan from the plaintiff, the rate loans, Jada gold to the housing in which the plaintiff charged a cent 13.75 per year, according to the Bank, plaintiff, no. 2.1.1 The interest rate is 19 per year, the plaintiff stated in Article 2 of the loan agreement as the default interest rate set forth at the end of the document separately. And it also appears that the plaintiff has changed the interest rate several times as a description of the changes in interest rates. The plaintiff charged the defendant with a certain percentage of some 19 per cent and 19.50 per year, some 24 per cent per annum, with interest rates that credit card again. It is beyond the interest rate announced by Bank of Thailand Plaintiffs and the Bank itself. Violation. Act not to exceed the rate of interest. The amount of such interest becomes void.rate of 7.5 percent per year.
The plaintiff was the banks that should be followed. Bank of Thailand Act. Bank of Thailand in conjunction with the Bank and the plaintiff. The plaintiff needs to know about the rules of the interest as well. The defendant, the plaintiff's customers. The state and the case does not appear reasonable that the defendant be aware of the rules announced by the Central Bank and Bank of the plaintiff in any way, so alone, but for the defendant to pay the debt to the plaintiff because they owe the plaintiff to. and various debt deduction. The amount of debt that the plaintiff was not calculated. And the plaintiff is a banking institution operating a business which is balanced by the public shall have cause to believe that the plaintiff and the defendant understood the interest correctly. It's not the case that the defendant pay the charge is calculated incorrectly to the willful violation of the prohibition by law or morality of the people. Or any arbitrary act as if the creditor with knowledge that they are not legally bound to pay, which will cause the defendant has no right to receive the return of property under Section 407 or else. When the contract with the plaintiff's interest is equal to void the loan agreement does not deal with the interest which the plaintiff is not entitled to default interest, and may not use the money to pay the plaintiff the defendant to come. deducted from the interest that the plaintiff had no right to think. We need to return the defendant to pay all debts.
Supreme Court in 7016/2550.
Receipt of the Loan, Quick Cash, cash loans, cash and contracts to identify messages that Defendant's request for cash loans, Quick Cash in the amount of $ 500,000 in credit usage fees 1.15 percent per month interest rate of 1 percent per month over the first month only. Management fees, loans, 0.5 percent of total loans, and the defendant had signed a major borrower. Without the plaintiff's signature in it. That document is merely evidence of the loan in writing, in accordance with Section 653 paragraph one, not a loan contract. The documents will be labeled as a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant cash loans. Such a document could not be fixed by the stamp duty on account of age at the rate prescribed under the purposes of stamp duty rate of income tax I Section 103, 104 and 118 so that such documents have been stamped as evidence of age. in this case.
Supreme Court in 4742/2550.
Section 653 shall apply to the case of payment by cash only. To serve as proof that the payments by allowing the plaintiff to scoop soil and use the money to pay debts and other obligations under the Civil and Commercial Code 321 shall not be subject to such provisions. And the Hearing in this case is not the case law that there must be evidence in writing in accordance with Section 94 P.wi.p. defendant can attest to.
Supreme Court in 3209/2550.
It is a partner with plaintiff in the sale of land to the defendant. The defendant had no money to pay for the land increased. The defendant agrees to accept the transfer by signing the loan agreement to sell them. Stating that the plaintiff was accused of borrowing the money from the sale to pay the price of land in the area at the back of the purchase and sale agreement. The plaintiff is entitled to sign a contract as a lender and borrower is bound captive
Original debt contract is an agreement to buy and sell land. The defendant does not have enough money to pay for the land than meat. So I decided to loan agreement to repay the excess land. Constitute a significant conversion of debt. The debt from the purchase and sale agreement, a loan agreement with lenders who are in a position to sell as well. The conversion of the debt does not change accounts. The change is not a conversion of debt by creditors to enforce the provisions on the transfer of claims, the defendant is liable for payment under the loan agreement to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 2900/2550.
The third defendant and the defendant 2 is authorized to manage the land to the plaintiff. To insure the defendant a loan and the loan agreement with the holder of the mortgage loan is evidenced by The land in accordance with Article 1, which is labeled. The parties shall be considered as evidence of the mortgage loans as well. The three defendants had to borrow money with the plaintiff by the defendant that a claimant is the land of the loan can be used as evidence against the three defendants to pay a debt to total capital. The agreement by the end of the mortgage contract, Article 5, the agreement is in addition to the Section 733 provisions to the effect that the third defendant to the plaintiff to pay the debt completely. It is the second defendant was made possible by the power of the agent. The end of the mortgage contract is binding on all five defendants, three.
Supreme Court in 3375/2549.
The first and second loan contract contains a letter that allows the borrower to the lender the interest rate is 1 baht per month, but scales the text next to a rate of 1.5 percent per month that the conflict. When the plaintiff does not serve as proof that the interest rate of 1.5 per cent last month, writes the error message is correct or not. Be construed as an agreement to grant plaintiff's interest rate up to 1.5 per cent per month or equal to 18 percent per year, in violation of the Act do not exceed the interest rate under Section 2475. 3 of Section 654 agreements, interest is void.
Supreme Court in 2760/2549.
Commercial Banking Act BE 2505 amended by Section 14 of the Banking Act (No. 2) Act 2522, the Central Bank, commercial banks are authorized to act on the matter. Banks may charge interest or discount them. And the Minister of Finance announced the Ministry of Finance. By virtue of Section 4 of the Act, interest on loans of financial institutions in 2523, as amended by the Act, interest on loans to financial institutions (No. 3) up. . 2535, the requirement that financial institutions may charge an interest rate of the loan, 2535, in Article 3 that "the interest rate that commercial banks. Finance. Corporate finance and securities. Or companies. May think of the loan shall not exceed the rate at which the financial institution shall, "the Bank of Thailand has issued a notification allowing commercial banks to deal in interest, and discounts in all three banks to announce interest rate triggered by major customer class. Well, kind of loan for a period of great clients in retail and commercial bank interest rates, most customers are from the wrong conditions. Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. The plaintiff, a financial institution has the power to declare their interest rate fluctuations. When the plaintiff, the plaintiff bank, has announced the interest rates were to be announced by the Bank of Thailand and the Ministry of Finance. The interest of the plaintiff, despite more than 15 percent per year rate is set by the law authorizing it. Not subject to Section 654.
Supreme Court in 7795/2549.
Contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to a third labeled "the compromise deal that will leave Barcelona ... 200,000 is the price paid for a period of two years from the date of the contract until April 1, 2543 if no money comes back to 200,000 buyers. Seller allows that in the 15 acres under contract to buy as of April 1, 2543 "means only that the defendant 1 would allow a property in Spain fell to the plaintiff, and if the defendant: 1. I paid 200,000 baht back to the plaintiff, both at the time. It is not a defendant in an agreement that ownership in the two immediately fall to the plaintiff by the defendant, an agreement that may be redeemed at the back in later. This will be a contract of sale under Section 491 but is a defendant that a certain amount of money received from both the plaintiff and agreed to pay back. The characteristics of the loan. The letter said the loan would be used as evidence. The plaintiff in the complaint that both the defendant to the plaintiff that a sale of land between the two. I allude to the facts that appear in the letter. A copy of the complaint, the plaintiff was only It is the duty of the court to the fact that the indictment by any laws. The plaintiff did not sue to enforce these two cases relating to land. I would like to force a defendant to reimburse the port.
Supreme Court in 5863/2549.
Defendant, the plaintiff has made a loan or a loan contract. The defendant will serve as proof of payment of principal only when there is no evidence either in writing signed by the lender to show or documentary evidence of borrowing which was expropriated in accordance with Section 653 paragraph two, but a copy of the contract. loan, the plaintiff returned to defendant is not evidence of the loan. Held that the plaintiff did not surrender to the defendant and evidence of the loan. The defendant can not attest to the amount as a refund to the plaintiff. To serve as proof of payment of interest is not in force of Article 653, paragraph two, the defendant can attest.
Supreme Court in 5520/2549.
Loan agreement with the plaintiff to sue, but the stamp duty is required. Plaintiffs would like to apply for permission to stamp duty in the loan agreement before or while the document is cited as evidence in a civil case before the court or the arbitration court. The plaintiffs recently filed a lawsuit after the Court of First Instance and Justice of the Court of Appeal Region 5. Lapse of time would be allowed to make modifications if the court allowed the plaintiff to the loan agreement are required to stamp duty. Then send the case back in court. It is not. The loan agreement is the instrument which stamp duty is still incomplete. The plaintiff can not be used as evidence in a civil case under Section 118 of income tax I held that the plaintiff did not have evidence of the loan in writing signed by the borrower, one of the show. Plaintiffs do not have a claim in court.
Supreme Court in 3874/2549.
Provisions of Section 653 paragraph one, that if there is no evidence of any loan as one signed by the borrower is important. The court will not prosecute them. Means to prevent them from picking up the defense as well. When the U.S. $ 5 million loan to the defendant, the plaintiff claimed that the loan from the defendant, the co-Rama is no evidence of borrowing a book. The defendant can not claim such a loan against the plaintiff to retain the title deeds of the plaintiff's control. And the plaintiff agreed to transfer the land to the defendant on the HMS hit a piling up. The defendant must pay extra money to the plaintiff with a number of HMS. See how much money the defendant will be charged as a material to be agreed. The defendants have not agreed on whether the defendant is required to pay additional money to the plaintiff for the amount of Rama. As a consumer there is no contract under Section 366 paragraph one, the defendant is not entitled to withhold the title deeds of the plaintiff's control.
Supreme Court in 1509/2549.
Books to borrow money and borrow money at the end of the document just how significant the District 7. The defendant is required to borrow money from the defendant personally before your loan is 14,000 baht to 200,000 baht and 214,000 baht loan amount, the defendant signed the loan. Plaintiff's loan. The rear end is a record that Borrow money several times. Totaling U.S. $ 380,000 for one defendant at all times. That document is merely evidence of the loans under Section 353 of the book only. Not a loan contract will have to pay duties according to the rate of stamp duty on instruments five accounts at the end of Chapter 6, stamp duty, I Rasada organization in any way. Documents that make up the District 7 District 6 is the same document refers to a separate loan agreement document is not saved to the document refers Mon 6 Mon 6 is used as evidence in civil claims.
Supreme Court in 4918/2548.
The loan agreement specifies that the borrower will pay interest at the rate of 19 per year or a new interest rate. The lender may be higher or lower than the interest rate and the borrower agrees to pay interest to lenders in the new interest rate announced by the plaintiff bank. The agreement defines the plaintiff is entitled to the interest of the defendant at the rate of 19 per year during the contract pursuant to the Ministry of Finance on the financial institutions and the interest rate that financial institutions may charge a borrower (No. 5. ) was assigned to the plaintiff interest on the loan at a maximum rate not exceeding 19 per year, with no requirement for a prescribed rate of interest whatsoever. Interest rates by the plaintiff and the defendant agreed by contract not to exceed the loan interest rate charged by the defendant that the plaintiff is entitled to the Ministry of Finance said. The loan contract of the plaintiff and the defendant to comply with the intent of the parties and within the framework of the Ministry of Finance is not void. And even when the loan agreement will be announcement of the plaintiff's interest rate to a lower interest rate than the rate specified in the loan agreements. The defendant will be charged interest from the defendant than the plaintiff's declaration did not matter. But that in actual practice, the plaintiff interest and the interest rate the Bank within the framework of the plaintiff and the Ministry of Finance. The interest of the plaintiff was not against the law in effect each other.
Supreme Court in 7050/2548.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to pay the loan amount of 24,000 baht by the end of the loan contract lawsuit. And permitting the defendant to deny that the loan documents are fake. To listen to the defendants entered into a loan from the plaintiff or not. The loan contract requires such evidence. The loan contract by the complainant on an instrument. The stamp duty is 1 baht per every 2,000 baht or fraction of 2,000 of the amount borrowed under the stamp duty, the law, so when the amount of the contract a loan of 24,000 baht must be closed, stamp duty, 12 but in a letter to recover the funds. stamp duty and stamp duty, only 5 baht incompleteness. Can not be used as evidence in a civil case. Under the Revenue Code Section 118 is equal to that plaintiff has no evidence either in writing signed by the borrower is important. The plaintiffs did not claim in court under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 653, paragraph one.
For stamp duty in the loan contract. Must be done before or while the document was cited as evidence before the District Court judge. When the plaintiff or the court has already sentenced. The loan contract is not stamped instruments must not be used as evidence. When a loan contract can not be cited as evidence in the case now. The plaintiff has the duty to ask for permission to have a complete instrument stamped by the Revenue Code Section 117 does not make the change.
Supreme Court in 6658/2548.
Check both the defendant disputes only the signed order. It is not complete and the amount of money. Check both of these disputes is consistently listed in the issue. Without the unconditional use of certain funds under Section 988 (2) is not completely in check by Section 987 and Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one and check the entire dispute. two, it is not evidence of a loan under Section 653 the plaintiff sued the defendant has no liability under the settlement check has both.
Supreme Court in 5026/2548.
Plaintiff claims that defendant terminated plaintiff in the position to approve the borrowing of assets that can be borrowed. It is the property of Iืmใchgsigneplืag outside the factory. The defendant did not take the regulations to show. Terms and conditions of employment of the defendant did not specify the definition. Assets are consumed. It is mandated by Section 650, which represents the type of property use to the end. The property that the plaintiff is authorized to borrow Wed cable pipe cable. Male power plug. Electrical plug socket. Electrical plug socket. Not the property of the end user. Is not the property of Iืmใchgsigneplืag. The plaintiff's action did not violate laws or rules about working. Malpractice. Or intentionally causing damage to the employer. The dismissal of plaintiff's dismissal was unfair. The defendant must pay. Paid annual holiday. Pay in lieu of notice calling for compensation for unfair dismissal to the plaintiff, plus interest.
Supreme Court in 6658/2548.
Check both the defendant disputes only the signed order. It is not complete and the amount of money. Check both of these disputes is consistently listed in the issue. Without the unconditional use of certain funds under Section 988 (2) is not completely in check by Section 987 and Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one and check the entire dispute. two, it is not evidence of a loan under Section 653 the plaintiff sued the defendant has no liability under the settlement check has both.
Supreme Court in 3564/2548.
The defendant deposits into the account of the plaintiff to settle the debt obligations of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's bank account to deposit money that the plaintiff has not legal obligation by the plaintiff directly. May not have been done under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 653, paragraph two, but that's the case, creditors agree to debt repayment instead of something else that was agreed upon in accordance with Section 321 paragraph one, the defendant can attest it.
Supreme Court in 2721/2548.
Loan contract that includes the text "A provost has lent cash to pay for the construction of the temple is done well .... Baht The temple has been restored after Kathin "is simply evidence of the loan as the borrower in writing and signed by Provost A. Section 653 is not a loan agreement shall not be required to stamp duty under Section I of income tax. 118.
Provost and acting dean liabilities a. The defendant owed the plaintiff a loan for the construction of religious treasure of the temple Kuti, the defendant What they're not borrowing to act on behalf of the defendant by virtue of Section 37 and 39 of the Act of 2505 and the clergy, and when the plaintiff delivered the money to the Provost A.. the defendant committed it. The borrower's property are of age. To be Awyawanhkr to keep your money or credit to expenses under Section 6, No. 2 (BE 2511) issued under the. Clergy Act 2505 and not about the age of the loan agreement. Defendant is liable to pay the loan plus interest to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 2335/2548.
Plaintiff to the defendant borrowed $ 500,000 against the defendant contacted the plaintiff to apply for loans and U.S. $ 4 million to the plaintiff and the defendant has made a contract specifying the loan amount includes a $ 500,000 loan from the plaintiff to the defendant prior to that one as well. Totaling U.S. $ 4.5 million loan, although the amount of U.S. $ 4 million later, it will not happen. Permitting such loans shall be fully effective, it also has debt of $ 500,000 in loans to real And the plaintiff's evidence to prosecute them in court as a loan of $ 500,000 in debt, according to the provisions of Section 653 paragraph one.
Supreme Court in 1651/2548.
The plaintiff had to borrow 10,000 baht and had signed a form letter that did not fill out a loan given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has completed and the amount of the loan contract that Defendant to the plaintiff to recover money the defendant fails to 300,000 by us agree with the indebtedness by filing a false document. Plaintiffs do not claim such documents as evidence in a lawsuit. The plaintiff has no evidence of borrowing a book that claims to the court under Section 653 paragraph one.
Supreme Court in 1539/2548.
The fact that the defendant received a loan from the plaintiff only 45,000 baht, and sign the loan agreement, the amount is not yet complete. Then, the loan agreement to complete the loan amount is 200,000 baht later than the loan amount that the defendant did not agree to a loan agreement, such as fake documents. Held that the plaintiff did not have evidence of borrowing a book. Plaintiffs do not claim to be the case under Section 653, paragraph one, so even though the defendant to receive a loan and that loan to pay 45,000 baht a defendant is not liable to pay that amount. made to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court to 625/2548.
Both the defendant and the defense was not liable under the loan agreement the plaintiff to sue. Because the two defendants, only 100,000 loan amount, but the plaintiff entered into a loan agreement totaling U.S. $ 275,000 by the two defendants did not consent to the loan contract is the fake documents. If the fact that the defendant received the claim would result in claims by the plaintiff's complaint has not been enforced by law. And the courts have already dismissed the cause. The defendant must either find a counterclaim to the plaintiff paid 100,000 plus interest. The plaintiff delivered to defendant's fraudulent loan agreements and to destroy any respect. The request by the counterclaim. The court can not enforce it. If the loan by filing a false document. Is equal to the loan was no evidence in writing. Plaintiff may bring suit to enforce against the two defendants.
Supreme Court in 6168/2547.
Section 14 of the Banking Act 2505 stipulates that the Bank has the power to require banks to perform the following? (2) the interest or discount, the banks may be called the Bank of Thailand, commercial banks charged interest and discounts from all of them is to streamline the banking system with the slowing down of the economy at that time which will cause stability and ensure the operation of commercial banks. The Bank of Thailand announced that Article 4 also requires commercial banks to announce interest rate deposits and loans, the Bank of Thailand within three days to control the commercial banks arbitrarily issue. Bank of Thailand announced that it is the commercial banks operating in the interest or discount that may be one of the Banking Act 2505 empowers the Bank of Thailand and commercial banks, but the alleged void. no.
Supreme Court in 4729/2547.
Loan agreement, the plaintiff sued the four defendants to enforce repayment. The four defendants were awarded the plaintiff. Due to the plaintiff, the four contracts of guarantee and registered the land as security for debt, m B together with loans from the bank. If the plaintiff, all four defendants to repay the bank debt will be liable to the plaintiff on all four contracts. The four plaintiffs in this lawsuit are not payable under the guarantee of bank debt due to the m and b. The defendant is not liable under the loan agreement. The four plaintiffs had no authority to sue.
The four Supreme Court that The defendant agreed to redeem the land title deed to the plaintiff to recover within four to six months, they will have to pay the plaintiff $ 500,000 for four to redeem the mortgage. The agreement is a commitment to them. When not writing and registered with the competent authority. Is not binding on the defendant under Section 526 of the four plaintiffs have no claim to the defendant for the amount of money.
Supreme Court in 3472/2546.
Plaintiff's business to consumer commerce. As well as lending money to pass. The defendant and the plaintiff's customer list that includes many other farmers who are required by the plaintiff's consumer credit loans, and loans to customers. I have a debt that is evidenced by the plaintiff to return the pass. The outstanding debt, thus allowing the plaintiff interest on the debt, such as in the following year. Circumstances such as the benefits of trade in non-interest charge.
Through. He made the loan agreement provided that the plaintiff was owed a debt that I owe under the loan agreement. Existing debts will hold an end to the conversion of debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 349, when it is time to repay the loan through. Not willing to pay to become the default shall be liable for payment to the plaintiff, plus interest at a rate of 15 percent per years of the loan agreement in accordance with Section 224 paragraph one pass. death, the defendant No. 1 as the wife of the past. and the defendant, the second as a statutory heir of the past. be liable to pay such debt to the plaintiff under section 1599 include Sections 1629,1635 (a) and Section 1737.
Supreme Court in 5644/2546.
The plaintiff sued to enforce the compromise agreement. Although the original debt, the debt will come from borrowing. The plaintiff sued the defendant did not repay the loan contract. The plaintiff need not have evidence of the loan in writing signed by the borrower to show to the court.
According to plaintiff's debt payments, the interest and penalty. Indebtedness of the compromise agreement. Non-loan debt, there is no law which prohibits the plaintiff or the interest rate exceeds 15 percent per year.
Supreme Court to 170/2546.
Plaintiffs operate a commercial bank financial institutions.So even a loan agreement between plaintiff and defendant in the annual percentage rate will be left blank by typing a number. The agreement says that the borrower will pay interest to lenders in the highest rate of Bank of Thailand, commercial banks can charge borrowers. It also stated that the borrower will pay interest to lenders in general, the highest rate of interest on loans, the lender shall make a loan from them. This means that After the contract. Bank of Thailand announced a change in interest rates or the lender allows the borrower to the lender under the agreement bear interest at the rate of the Bank or the Lenders shall be announced soon. Without any change to its borrowers and to comply with this until the borrower will repay in full. The agreement required by the legal rate of interest is expressed. And whether the Bank of Thailand to act in the interest of the banks and the discount will be part of the loan or not. The plaintiff charged the defendant in the interest rate does not exceed the interest rate announced by Bank of Thailand, which plaintiff would be entitled under the law. The plaintiff, therefore, prefer to think of the interest rate.
Supreme Court in 6449/2544.
The court has ordered the plaintiff is a trustee of the grade on May 21, 2540 after that date would be the heir to the estate management and any legal action against third parties only where the plaintiff has paid the loan off. . the defendant shall transfer the land to pay debts to the defendants on June 10, 2540, is the heir of the defendant, I would rather I not entitled to receive payment of the transfer of land to repay the loan is not equivalent. debt owed by an amount equal to the market price of the land on which the date of delivery. Contrary to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 656, paragraph one, and void under Article 656 paragraph does not make any loans.
Supreme Court in 1550/2539.
Request a credit agreement that would grant the plaintiff to pay the deposit in the account are insufficient for an indefinite period, but the defendants agreed to repay the loan plus interest at the maximum rate of the Bank of Thailand. It is the interest in advance can be considered that the defendant agrees to provide the plaintiff with interest at the rate of such plants are not subject to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 654 which prohibits charging interest in excess of fifteen percent per year, it is not a loan and the plaintiff is a commercial bank. agreement with the law without a penalty.
This agreement must be on delivering the borrowed property.
Section 651 court fees for contracting it. Delivery and return the property to borrow it. It falls to the borrower is free.
Section 652 if the contract is scheduled to return property to the borrower. Notice to the lender to the borrower to return the property within a reasonable time. Under which the notice of the time.
Section 653 loans for over two thousand more than that. If there is no evidence of the loan as one signed by the borrower is important. The court can not be sued.
The loans have a book. You will serve as proof of payment only when there is no evidence either in writing signed by the lender to show or documentary evidence of borrowing which has been expropriated. Placed into a document or withdraw it.
Section 654 prohibits a person less than fifteen percent interest per year. If the contract is in excess of the interest. It fell to a fifteen percent per year.
Section 655 are prohibited from charging interest on unpaid interest. But when the interest payable not less than one year. The parties will agree to loan the interest is compounded with the principal, the interest amount is folded into it. However, such agreements shall be in writing.
The tradition of trading in the account from the compounding interest. In trade and other such like this. What are the provisions which are not mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Section 656 if the loan agreement. And agree that any loans or other assets as the amount of the gem. If you think a debt owed by the amount equal to the price of goods or property on the market at the time and place of delivery.
If the loan agreement. And lenders agree to remove any copyright or other obligations for borrowed money soon. Suspension of debt payments because of that. You shall be an amount equal to the market price of the goods or property at the time and place of delivery.
Any agreement contrary to this statement. That void.
Supreme Court to 145/2553.
The plaintiff's complaint stated that The defendant entered into an agreement to borrow money from the plaintiff, it must be evidence that Section 653 of the loan book is one sign. The borrower is important. And the provisions P.wi.p. Section 94 (b) the plaintiff's testimony or the claim is otherwise beyond. The loan agreement so that the plaintiff has no claim under the loan contract that says to do in Bangkok. Metropolitan is false. In fact, the office of the plaintiff in the jurisdiction of the Court. It is alleged that a contract can not attest to modify the loan. In most cases, the information indicating the intention of the parties. Therefore prohibited by the provisions.
In essence, the loan is delivered and the contract or written evidence that the plaintiff may withdraw funds from any bank or lending money to the defendant. Borrowing money is not significant in any way, and according to the complaint, the plaintiff and the defendant in a bank savings account that is local. Defendant is domiciled in the contract. That plaintiff is not entitled to transfer to the defendant because the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw it. The defendant paid the plaintiff will be required to withdraw the loan from the bank, the Bank shall be deemed to take delivery of the money borrowed. The case was brought against a defendant domiciled in one area while doing. Specified in the contract and loan agreement as a contract loan.
Supreme Court in 9189/2552.
Other creditors to seize land Enforcement Officer mortgaged to the plaintiff, the defendant sold fried. Market to pay the verdict. The plaintiff filed a petition for a mortgage loan. The court ordered the plaintiff to obtain a mortgage loan of 400,000 baht and interest under the mortgage from the proceeds from the auction of the mortgaged property before. At the request of the plaintiff and other creditors. The plaintiff is entitled to enforce payment by court order already. When the defendant did not owe the plaintiff and the mortgage debt. The plaintiff to bring a defendant to make the mortgage loan agreement and the positive Interest rates than would be legal. The interest on the part of the void by the defendant did not receive payments under the loan. Such money in any way. Loan agreement, no debt, the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked the court to compel the defendant to pay the debt under the loan agreement did not.
Supreme Court to 690/2552.
Agreement to fund training abroad, the defendant first having to return to the plaintiff for a period of 3 years or pay the penalty at three times the number of charges, the defendant first must pay back with interest rates. 15 per cent per year, a defendant can choose whether to return to the claimant or reimburse the cost of training. Plaintiff returned to training with a penalty three times the amount to be paid back. 3 times the penalty provision is not a requirement that a defendant will be more burdensome than the predictable routine. The plaintiff sent the defendant a training only 14 days (including day 2 days) estimated the cost of training 300,000 plaintiffs to pay for the training of the defendants 1 to 223,871.70 USD terms to the defendant. is a need to work with the plaintiff, the plaintiff in the position and function for up to three years to allow a defendant to bear than to be expected as normal. Is effective for only one year as a fair and reasonable to the Act on Unfair Terms Act 2540, Section 5, the rate is 15 percent per year. The interest rate on the extent to which Section 654 provisions and the Central Labour Court has reduced the rate to 7.5 percent per year, so it does not make that a defendant will have to bear more than expected normally.
Supreme Court in 6236/2551.
Contract, loan funds and urban villages that. If the borrower fails to pay the loan and interest payment within the prescribed period. The borrower agrees to charge default interest at the rate of increase at 0.50 per cent of total outstanding loans to be paid until the end. The defendants consented to the plaintiff's interest rate increases. Higher than the rate agreed in the contract if the defendant fails to pay the debt to be contracted, it is a penalty if the court considers that it has exceeded the power is decreasing. A reasonable amount according to Section 379 and Section 383 paragraph one.
Agreements and urban housing fund loan interest rate is the rate of 12 percent per year, which does not exceed 15 percent per year, not prohibited by Section 654 and Act no. The interest rate under Section 3 of the 2475 agreement, the plaintiff interest at a rate of 0.50 per cent on a pre-determined compensation in the event the defendant fails to make payments under the contract have been characterized as a penalty. Yes, it is agreement on the interest rate exceeds 15 percent per year, so it does not violate Section 654 and Section 2475 shall not exceed the rate of interest that 3 is not void.
Supreme Court in 8175/2551.
Proof of payment as provided in Section 653 that may occur during or after the time the loan. It is not limited to the evidence that was given to each other. Although the defendant testified as a witness in criminal court that the defendant's loan. Money from the plaintiff will be held after the loan and the delivery provided that it is considered that the loan between the defendant and the plaintiff in the case where there is evidence in writing so that when the defendant does not have proof of payment in writing. one sign. Plaintiff to show the lender. The defendant did not serve as proof of payment. Because it is prohibited under the laws listed above.
Supreme Court in 6414/2551.
Defendants are officials of the Department of National Education Commission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was assigned to the training of school employees. Educational reform. The defendant borrowed from the plaintiff to be used in training the employees of the school reform Such a study. As a matter of public duty. Contract to lend money as just one step in the performance of official duties of the defendant is not a loan based on 9 of the Civil and Commercial Code, and may not apply to provisions in the ninth as the laws of the nearby it can be.
Supreme Court in 7160/2551.
The repayment of the loan agreement has resulted in the debt extinguished. The evidence required to withdraw a document which is the subject of the loan. Investigate the use of funds under Section 653, paragraph two, it's a different case. The revocation is not placed into the document as proof of payment can not be considered. That no such payment.
Supreme Court in 1783/2551.
The issuance of promissory notes. And its 16 percent interest rate per annum as agreed by Section 911, 968 (1) of Section 985, the law does not place any restrictions on the parties may agree. It is not a loan within the meaning of Act not to exceed the rate of interest at the rate specified in the promissory note at 16 percent per year, it's not the case, the interest rate which would be an offense under the Act and do not require. prohibited by Section 654, according to promissory notes and interest to sue is not void.
Supreme Court in 6474/2551.
To consider the complaint of the plaintiff that the defendant intends to repay the debt, what is required. Consider the entire contents of the complaint filed with the documents is important. But not the words or only part of the indictment, which followed. The plaintiff sued the defendant is the plaintiff wants a loan under the loan agreement and promissory note at a time. When the two defendants did not deny the debt on the loan, so even to listen to the testimony of both defendants claim that the promissory notes. Terminate the fund. Both defendants were still liable for the debt by borrowing against the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 6823/2551.
Attest to the defendant to pay the loan back to the plaintiff. A. The defendant gave the plaintiff bank's ATM to withdraw money from the defendant's account every month. And that the plaintiff has been such an ATM card to withdraw money from the account of the defendant. It held that the creditors accept the settlement and another settlement was agreed upon in accordance with Section 321 shall not prohibit a defendant to bring witnesses to court or how to pay it. them. Treated like any Not in force only as a Section 653 paragraph two.
Supreme Court in 1783/2551.
The issuance of promissory notes. And its 16 percent interest rate per annum as agreed by Section 911, 968 (1) of Section 985, the law does not place any restrictions on the parties may agree. It is not a loan within the meaning of Act not to exceed the rate of interest at the rate specified in the promissory note at 16 percent per year, it's not the case, the interest rate which would be an offense under the Act and do not require. prohibited by Section 654, according to promissory notes and interest to sue is not void.
Supreme Court in 1883/2551.
Section 653 Civil and Commercial Code shall apply to the evidence of the loan in writing and signed by the borrower to sue them in court without evidence, in writing, shall state the date of the contract. Date of maturity and the interest rate.
The loan was made. The authors have filled the amount of the loan amount that the plaintiff had agreed to meet. The defendant's signature on the loan. The plaintiff brought a legal action to recover the money. To enter other This is done without the consent of the defendant is not mentioned at all. It does not make a claim, the evidence is on the defendant and forced them to lose. The loan is not fraudulent documents.
Supreme Court in 5298/2551.
Civil Code Procedure Section 4 (1) states that the indictment be presented to the court that the defendant is domiciled in the district court. Or to the court that the case was in court that the defendant is not domiciled in India. Kingdom, or that the case was referred to as the source of the argument that the plaintiff has the right to sue. When the plaintiff credit personal loans at the office of the plaintiff to the defendant. Under the jurisdiction of the District Court Rd. The defendant's breach of contract without payment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been damaged. I can see why as the source of its counterclaims that the plaintiff has sued. The defendant caused the plaintiff's office where the loan to the defendant. Which are within the jurisdiction of the district court that the plaintiff has the Pathumwan Princess Hotel Pathumwan District Court heard the case against them. Under the provisions of that law. The defendant used the telephone for a personal loan to the defendant. The facilities provided to the defendant, the only customer. I brought it up at the office of the plaintiff to do.
Plaintiff is a legal non-financial companies. We do not have the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand Criteria and conditions for conducting business for personal loans. Non-financial businesses, so the interest is required under the provisions of Section 654 and Section 2475 do not exceed the rate of interest referred to in Section 3 shall not bear interest. More than 15 percent per year, even though the plaintiff would benefit under the contract is the first time. Usage Fee and separately from the normal interest charged by the title. Be different. However, benefits such as compensation to the plaintiff from the defendant to the plaintiff borrows money so it is the first time and fees for such facilities. The interest on the loan agreement. Plaintiff received benefits under such an interest. The first time. Usage Fee and the interest charged monthly. The calculation of the principal and interest that is calculated in advance for 2 years, defendants must repay the principal and interest to the plaintiff by the same amount every month. The defendant shall pay interest is not reduced in proportion to the amount reduced. The fixed interest rate (Flat rate) when calculating the interest rate (Effective rate) which exceeds the rate of 15 percent per year, in violation of the provisions of Section 654, and Log. . Do not exceed the interest rate of 2475 Section 3 deals with the benefits of the loan agreement in respect of the interest. All the void. The plaintiff is not entitled to interest at the rate of the defendants. The deduction of service fees charged to the first plaintiff from the proceeds. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff under the contract. The problem is with the law on public order. The Supreme Court has the power to lift up the diagnosis.
(Meeting No. 3 / 2550).
Supreme Court in 4698/2551.
Tech. The defendant's three plaintiff loan of U.S. $ 2 million settlement with the land and house as collateral. The three defendants agreed to make the sale, according to the wishes of the plaintiff's done. Pay a transaction. The redemption value of U.S. $ 3.5 million and interest on the interest in advance of 300,000 when not provided by law, the legal sale of an interest together. In addition, plaintiff's own testimony to that. Contact for the plaintiff loans. We hear that the contract is a legal sale of loans with hidden land. The settlement house as collateral. So the law relating to loan transactions under Section 155 is applicable to the disputed land and the house is still owned by the three defendants. The plaintiff is not entitled to sue the defendants drove three.
Supreme Court in 1883/2551.
Mata 653 Civil and Commercial Code shall apply to the evidence of the loan in writing and signed by the borrower is. Claim in court and without that evidence, in writing, must specify the date. Months of the contract. Date of maturity and the interest rate.
The loan was made. The authors have filled the amount of the loan amount that the plaintiff had agreed to meet. The defendant's signature on the loan. The plaintiff brought a legal action to recover the money. To enter other This is done without the consent of the defendant is not mentioned at all. It does not make a claim, the evidence is, and force it to the defendant. It is lost. The loan is not fraudulent documents.
Supreme Court in 1128/2551.
The court appointed a trustee of the plaintiff, the two together, but Sun does not mean that the duties of a trustee under Section 1726 will be co-trustee or co. to sign all legal documents. The plaintiff is a sign the letter to debt as creditors and the trustee solely by the second plaintiff, a trustee, another site must be considered together, and heritage management. With the debt, they do not contract a debt in writing the book made by the debtor, creditors agree that they owe it. The creditor can require a party does not. The debt on the books is a book made by the two defendants that they owed the plaintiff a loan Sat Ehgamrdk as trustee of the Sun is not signed with a signing only. Letter to the debt is valid and enforceable under the laws of the two defendants who have admitted debt.
Supreme Court to 142/2550.
Agreement that requires that. If the borrower fails to pay the plaintiff's debt to the lender when the Sun contract was due to land disputes to the MP immediately repay the loan by the plaintiff's attorney shall be signed by not adhering to fill the Sun. is guaranteed, regardless of land disputes that are equal to market prices at the time and place for the transfer of title or registration period. The agreement was contrary to Section 656 paragraph two shall be null and void under Article 656, paragraph three.
Supreme Court in 6624/2550.
Lending by Financial Institutions Act and Section 4 The Minister of Finance, with the advice of the Bank of Thailand shall have power to set interest rates that financial institutions may charge their loan or a loan or not. The loan is higher than the rate of fifteen percent per annum and the interest rate prescribed under Section 6 of Article 4, Section 654 of the Civil and Commercial Code shall apply to the interest of the institution. Finance Minister under Section 4 of the plaintiff is a banking institution pursuant to Section 3 (2) of the Act, interest on loans to financial institutions. The fact that the plaintiff is a financial institution that the Minister of Finance, the interest rate of loans to the plaintiff more than 15 percent per year, or a dispute of fact on the issue directly. Ministry of Finance on the financial institution may charge interest from the borrower. That the plaintiff interest at a rate that exceeds the rate of 15 percent per year, is evidence of significant issues important in the case that the plaintiff is required to attest. The plaintiff's witnesses testified that The interest and the interest rate under the mortgage loan and the plaintiff to sue as required by the Bank and the Bank of the plaintiff. I sent the Ministry of Finance on the financial institution may charge interest from the borrower. Bank of Thailand annexed it. Held that the plaintiff can attest to the Ministry of Finance said.
Although plaintiff may not claim the Ministry of Finance said in a witness in violation of the provisions of Section 88 of P.wi.p. Although announced as official documents of the defendant and the general public can be sure to have true and correct them without a struggle. Plaintiffs allege that the documents submitted during the hearing the plaintiff. When the Court has shifted to the plaintiff's witnesses have finished calling witnesses the defendant. Defendants have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and examine documents and the plaintiff's evidence attest to refute the plaintiff's evidence. The defendant was not able to fight the case. The date of the hearing the defendant. The witnesses said the defendant did not doubt the interest of justice, the court has jurisdiction to hear the Ministry of Finance under Section 87 when the defendant does not P.wi.p. objection to the existence and authenticity of the Ministry of Finance said. Get the facts. Minister of Finance announced the interest rates that financial institutions may charge a borrower pursuant to Section 4, then the plaintiff is a financial institution under the Ministry of Finance, the Minister said. Section 654 of the Civil and Commercial Code do not apply to the interest of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to charge interest rates exceeding 15 percent per year.
Supreme Court in 5480/2550.
Even if the plaintiff is a commercial bank in the interest rate does not fall under the provisions of Section 654, but the interest of the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 14 of the Banking Act, under which the Bank issued a commercial bank in terms of interest and discounts. The plaintiff was issued, interest rates and discounts apply. If the defendant's interest of the plaintiff in force at the time the defendant entered into a loan from the plaintiff, the rate loans, Jada gold to the housing in which the plaintiff charged a cent 13.75 per year, according to the Bank, plaintiff, no. 2.1.1 The interest rate is 19 per year, the plaintiff stated in Article 2 of the loan agreement as the default interest rate set forth at the end of the document separately. And it also appears that the plaintiff has changed the interest rate several times as a description of the changes in interest rates. The plaintiff charged the defendant with a certain percentage of some 19 per cent and 19.50 per year, some 24 per cent per annum, with interest rates that credit card again. It is beyond the interest rate announced by Bank of Thailand Plaintiffs and the Bank itself. Violation. Act not to exceed the rate of interest. The amount of such interest becomes void.rate of 7.5 percent per year.
The plaintiff was the banks that should be followed. Bank of Thailand Act. Bank of Thailand in conjunction with the Bank and the plaintiff. The plaintiff needs to know about the rules of the interest as well. The defendant, the plaintiff's customers. The state and the case does not appear reasonable that the defendant be aware of the rules announced by the Central Bank and Bank of the plaintiff in any way, so alone, but for the defendant to pay the debt to the plaintiff because they owe the plaintiff to. and various debt deduction. The amount of debt that the plaintiff was not calculated. And the plaintiff is a banking institution operating a business which is balanced by the public shall have cause to believe that the plaintiff and the defendant understood the interest correctly. It's not the case that the defendant pay the charge is calculated incorrectly to the willful violation of the prohibition by law or morality of the people. Or any arbitrary act as if the creditor with knowledge that they are not legally bound to pay, which will cause the defendant has no right to receive the return of property under Section 407 or else. When the contract with the plaintiff's interest is equal to void the loan agreement does not deal with the interest which the plaintiff is not entitled to default interest, and may not use the money to pay the plaintiff the defendant to come. deducted from the interest that the plaintiff had no right to think. We need to return the defendant to pay all debts.
Supreme Court in 7016/2550.
Receipt of the Loan, Quick Cash, cash loans, cash and contracts to identify messages that Defendant's request for cash loans, Quick Cash in the amount of $ 500,000 in credit usage fees 1.15 percent per month interest rate of 1 percent per month over the first month only. Management fees, loans, 0.5 percent of total loans, and the defendant had signed a major borrower. Without the plaintiff's signature in it. That document is merely evidence of the loan in writing, in accordance with Section 653 paragraph one, not a loan contract. The documents will be labeled as a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant cash loans. Such a document could not be fixed by the stamp duty on account of age at the rate prescribed under the purposes of stamp duty rate of income tax I Section 103, 104 and 118 so that such documents have been stamped as evidence of age. in this case.
Supreme Court in 4742/2550.
Section 653 shall apply to the case of payment by cash only. To serve as proof that the payments by allowing the plaintiff to scoop soil and use the money to pay debts and other obligations under the Civil and Commercial Code 321 shall not be subject to such provisions. And the Hearing in this case is not the case law that there must be evidence in writing in accordance with Section 94 P.wi.p. defendant can attest to.
Supreme Court in 3209/2550.
It is a partner with plaintiff in the sale of land to the defendant. The defendant had no money to pay for the land increased. The defendant agrees to accept the transfer by signing the loan agreement to sell them. Stating that the plaintiff was accused of borrowing the money from the sale to pay the price of land in the area at the back of the purchase and sale agreement. The plaintiff is entitled to sign a contract as a lender and borrower is bound captive
Original debt contract is an agreement to buy and sell land. The defendant does not have enough money to pay for the land than meat. So I decided to loan agreement to repay the excess land. Constitute a significant conversion of debt. The debt from the purchase and sale agreement, a loan agreement with lenders who are in a position to sell as well. The conversion of the debt does not change accounts. The change is not a conversion of debt by creditors to enforce the provisions on the transfer of claims, the defendant is liable for payment under the loan agreement to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 2900/2550.
The third defendant and the defendant 2 is authorized to manage the land to the plaintiff. To insure the defendant a loan and the loan agreement with the holder of the mortgage loan is evidenced by The land in accordance with Article 1, which is labeled. The parties shall be considered as evidence of the mortgage loans as well. The three defendants had to borrow money with the plaintiff by the defendant that a claimant is the land of the loan can be used as evidence against the three defendants to pay a debt to total capital. The agreement by the end of the mortgage contract, Article 5, the agreement is in addition to the Section 733 provisions to the effect that the third defendant to the plaintiff to pay the debt completely. It is the second defendant was made possible by the power of the agent. The end of the mortgage contract is binding on all five defendants, three.
Supreme Court in 3375/2549.
The first and second loan contract contains a letter that allows the borrower to the lender the interest rate is 1 baht per month, but scales the text next to a rate of 1.5 percent per month that the conflict. When the plaintiff does not serve as proof that the interest rate of 1.5 per cent last month, writes the error message is correct or not. Be construed as an agreement to grant plaintiff's interest rate up to 1.5 per cent per month or equal to 18 percent per year, in violation of the Act do not exceed the interest rate under Section 2475. 3 of Section 654 agreements, interest is void.
Supreme Court in 2760/2549.
Commercial Banking Act BE 2505 amended by Section 14 of the Banking Act (No. 2) Act 2522, the Central Bank, commercial banks are authorized to act on the matter. Banks may charge interest or discount them. And the Minister of Finance announced the Ministry of Finance. By virtue of Section 4 of the Act, interest on loans of financial institutions in 2523, as amended by the Act, interest on loans to financial institutions (No. 3) up. . 2535, the requirement that financial institutions may charge an interest rate of the loan, 2535, in Article 3 that "the interest rate that commercial banks. Finance. Corporate finance and securities. Or companies. May think of the loan shall not exceed the rate at which the financial institution shall, "the Bank of Thailand has issued a notification allowing commercial banks to deal in interest, and discounts in all three banks to announce interest rate triggered by major customer class. Well, kind of loan for a period of great clients in retail and commercial bank interest rates, most customers are from the wrong conditions. Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Thailand. The plaintiff, a financial institution has the power to declare their interest rate fluctuations. When the plaintiff, the plaintiff bank, has announced the interest rates were to be announced by the Bank of Thailand and the Ministry of Finance. The interest of the plaintiff, despite more than 15 percent per year rate is set by the law authorizing it. Not subject to Section 654.
Supreme Court in 7795/2549.
Contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to a third labeled "the compromise deal that will leave Barcelona ... 200,000 is the price paid for a period of two years from the date of the contract until April 1, 2543 if no money comes back to 200,000 buyers. Seller allows that in the 15 acres under contract to buy as of April 1, 2543 "means only that the defendant 1 would allow a property in Spain fell to the plaintiff, and if the defendant: 1. I paid 200,000 baht back to the plaintiff, both at the time. It is not a defendant in an agreement that ownership in the two immediately fall to the plaintiff by the defendant, an agreement that may be redeemed at the back in later. This will be a contract of sale under Section 491 but is a defendant that a certain amount of money received from both the plaintiff and agreed to pay back. The characteristics of the loan. The letter said the loan would be used as evidence. The plaintiff in the complaint that both the defendant to the plaintiff that a sale of land between the two. I allude to the facts that appear in the letter. A copy of the complaint, the plaintiff was only It is the duty of the court to the fact that the indictment by any laws. The plaintiff did not sue to enforce these two cases relating to land. I would like to force a defendant to reimburse the port.
Supreme Court in 5863/2549.
Defendant, the plaintiff has made a loan or a loan contract. The defendant will serve as proof of payment of principal only when there is no evidence either in writing signed by the lender to show or documentary evidence of borrowing which was expropriated in accordance with Section 653 paragraph two, but a copy of the contract. loan, the plaintiff returned to defendant is not evidence of the loan. Held that the plaintiff did not surrender to the defendant and evidence of the loan. The defendant can not attest to the amount as a refund to the plaintiff. To serve as proof of payment of interest is not in force of Article 653, paragraph two, the defendant can attest.
Supreme Court in 5520/2549.
Loan agreement with the plaintiff to sue, but the stamp duty is required. Plaintiffs would like to apply for permission to stamp duty in the loan agreement before or while the document is cited as evidence in a civil case before the court or the arbitration court. The plaintiffs recently filed a lawsuit after the Court of First Instance and Justice of the Court of Appeal Region 5. Lapse of time would be allowed to make modifications if the court allowed the plaintiff to the loan agreement are required to stamp duty. Then send the case back in court. It is not. The loan agreement is the instrument which stamp duty is still incomplete. The plaintiff can not be used as evidence in a civil case under Section 118 of income tax I held that the plaintiff did not have evidence of the loan in writing signed by the borrower, one of the show. Plaintiffs do not have a claim in court.
Supreme Court in 3874/2549.
Provisions of Section 653 paragraph one, that if there is no evidence of any loan as one signed by the borrower is important. The court will not prosecute them. Means to prevent them from picking up the defense as well. When the U.S. $ 5 million loan to the defendant, the plaintiff claimed that the loan from the defendant, the co-Rama is no evidence of borrowing a book. The defendant can not claim such a loan against the plaintiff to retain the title deeds of the plaintiff's control. And the plaintiff agreed to transfer the land to the defendant on the HMS hit a piling up. The defendant must pay extra money to the plaintiff with a number of HMS. See how much money the defendant will be charged as a material to be agreed. The defendants have not agreed on whether the defendant is required to pay additional money to the plaintiff for the amount of Rama. As a consumer there is no contract under Section 366 paragraph one, the defendant is not entitled to withhold the title deeds of the plaintiff's control.
Supreme Court in 1509/2549.
Books to borrow money and borrow money at the end of the document just how significant the District 7. The defendant is required to borrow money from the defendant personally before your loan is 14,000 baht to 200,000 baht and 214,000 baht loan amount, the defendant signed the loan. Plaintiff's loan. The rear end is a record that Borrow money several times. Totaling U.S. $ 380,000 for one defendant at all times. That document is merely evidence of the loans under Section 353 of the book only. Not a loan contract will have to pay duties according to the rate of stamp duty on instruments five accounts at the end of Chapter 6, stamp duty, I Rasada organization in any way. Documents that make up the District 7 District 6 is the same document refers to a separate loan agreement document is not saved to the document refers Mon 6 Mon 6 is used as evidence in civil claims.
Supreme Court in 4918/2548.
The loan agreement specifies that the borrower will pay interest at the rate of 19 per year or a new interest rate. The lender may be higher or lower than the interest rate and the borrower agrees to pay interest to lenders in the new interest rate announced by the plaintiff bank. The agreement defines the plaintiff is entitled to the interest of the defendant at the rate of 19 per year during the contract pursuant to the Ministry of Finance on the financial institutions and the interest rate that financial institutions may charge a borrower (No. 5. ) was assigned to the plaintiff interest on the loan at a maximum rate not exceeding 19 per year, with no requirement for a prescribed rate of interest whatsoever. Interest rates by the plaintiff and the defendant agreed by contract not to exceed the loan interest rate charged by the defendant that the plaintiff is entitled to the Ministry of Finance said. The loan contract of the plaintiff and the defendant to comply with the intent of the parties and within the framework of the Ministry of Finance is not void. And even when the loan agreement will be announcement of the plaintiff's interest rate to a lower interest rate than the rate specified in the loan agreements. The defendant will be charged interest from the defendant than the plaintiff's declaration did not matter. But that in actual practice, the plaintiff interest and the interest rate the Bank within the framework of the plaintiff and the Ministry of Finance. The interest of the plaintiff was not against the law in effect each other.
Supreme Court in 7050/2548.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to pay the loan amount of 24,000 baht by the end of the loan contract lawsuit. And permitting the defendant to deny that the loan documents are fake. To listen to the defendants entered into a loan from the plaintiff or not. The loan contract requires such evidence. The loan contract by the complainant on an instrument. The stamp duty is 1 baht per every 2,000 baht or fraction of 2,000 of the amount borrowed under the stamp duty, the law, so when the amount of the contract a loan of 24,000 baht must be closed, stamp duty, 12 but in a letter to recover the funds. stamp duty and stamp duty, only 5 baht incompleteness. Can not be used as evidence in a civil case. Under the Revenue Code Section 118 is equal to that plaintiff has no evidence either in writing signed by the borrower is important. The plaintiffs did not claim in court under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 653, paragraph one.
For stamp duty in the loan contract. Must be done before or while the document was cited as evidence before the District Court judge. When the plaintiff or the court has already sentenced. The loan contract is not stamped instruments must not be used as evidence. When a loan contract can not be cited as evidence in the case now. The plaintiff has the duty to ask for permission to have a complete instrument stamped by the Revenue Code Section 117 does not make the change.
Supreme Court in 6658/2548.
Check both the defendant disputes only the signed order. It is not complete and the amount of money. Check both of these disputes is consistently listed in the issue. Without the unconditional use of certain funds under Section 988 (2) is not completely in check by Section 987 and Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one and check the entire dispute. two, it is not evidence of a loan under Section 653 the plaintiff sued the defendant has no liability under the settlement check has both.
Supreme Court in 5026/2548.
Plaintiff claims that defendant terminated plaintiff in the position to approve the borrowing of assets that can be borrowed. It is the property of Iืmใchgsigneplืag outside the factory. The defendant did not take the regulations to show. Terms and conditions of employment of the defendant did not specify the definition. Assets are consumed. It is mandated by Section 650, which represents the type of property use to the end. The property that the plaintiff is authorized to borrow Wed cable pipe cable. Male power plug. Electrical plug socket. Electrical plug socket. Not the property of the end user. Is not the property of Iืmใchgsigneplืag. The plaintiff's action did not violate laws or rules about working. Malpractice. Or intentionally causing damage to the employer. The dismissal of plaintiff's dismissal was unfair. The defendant must pay. Paid annual holiday. Pay in lieu of notice calling for compensation for unfair dismissal to the plaintiff, plus interest.
Supreme Court in 6658/2548.
Check both the defendant disputes only the signed order. It is not complete and the amount of money. Check both of these disputes is consistently listed in the issue. Without the unconditional use of certain funds under Section 988 (2) is not completely in check by Section 987 and Section 910 and Section 989 paragraph one and check the entire dispute. two, it is not evidence of a loan under Section 653 the plaintiff sued the defendant has no liability under the settlement check has both.
Supreme Court in 3564/2548.
The defendant deposits into the account of the plaintiff to settle the debt obligations of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's bank account to deposit money that the plaintiff has not legal obligation by the plaintiff directly. May not have been done under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 653, paragraph two, but that's the case, creditors agree to debt repayment instead of something else that was agreed upon in accordance with Section 321 paragraph one, the defendant can attest it.
Supreme Court in 2721/2548.
Loan contract that includes the text "A provost has lent cash to pay for the construction of the temple is done well .... Baht The temple has been restored after Kathin "is simply evidence of the loan as the borrower in writing and signed by Provost A. Section 653 is not a loan agreement shall not be required to stamp duty under Section I of income tax. 118.
Provost and acting dean liabilities a. The defendant owed the plaintiff a loan for the construction of religious treasure of the temple Kuti, the defendant What they're not borrowing to act on behalf of the defendant by virtue of Section 37 and 39 of the Act of 2505 and the clergy, and when the plaintiff delivered the money to the Provost A.. the defendant committed it. The borrower's property are of age. To be Awyawanhkr to keep your money or credit to expenses under Section 6, No. 2 (BE 2511) issued under the. Clergy Act 2505 and not about the age of the loan agreement. Defendant is liable to pay the loan plus interest to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 2335/2548.
Plaintiff to the defendant borrowed $ 500,000 against the defendant contacted the plaintiff to apply for loans and U.S. $ 4 million to the plaintiff and the defendant has made a contract specifying the loan amount includes a $ 500,000 loan from the plaintiff to the defendant prior to that one as well. Totaling U.S. $ 4.5 million loan, although the amount of U.S. $ 4 million later, it will not happen. Permitting such loans shall be fully effective, it also has debt of $ 500,000 in loans to real And the plaintiff's evidence to prosecute them in court as a loan of $ 500,000 in debt, according to the provisions of Section 653 paragraph one.
Supreme Court in 1651/2548.
The plaintiff had to borrow 10,000 baht and had signed a form letter that did not fill out a loan given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has completed and the amount of the loan contract that Defendant to the plaintiff to recover money the defendant fails to 300,000 by us agree with the indebtedness by filing a false document. Plaintiffs do not claim such documents as evidence in a lawsuit. The plaintiff has no evidence of borrowing a book that claims to the court under Section 653 paragraph one.
Supreme Court in 1539/2548.
The fact that the defendant received a loan from the plaintiff only 45,000 baht, and sign the loan agreement, the amount is not yet complete. Then, the loan agreement to complete the loan amount is 200,000 baht later than the loan amount that the defendant did not agree to a loan agreement, such as fake documents. Held that the plaintiff did not have evidence of borrowing a book. Plaintiffs do not claim to be the case under Section 653, paragraph one, so even though the defendant to receive a loan and that loan to pay 45,000 baht a defendant is not liable to pay that amount. made to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court to 625/2548.
Both the defendant and the defense was not liable under the loan agreement the plaintiff to sue. Because the two defendants, only 100,000 loan amount, but the plaintiff entered into a loan agreement totaling U.S. $ 275,000 by the two defendants did not consent to the loan contract is the fake documents. If the fact that the defendant received the claim would result in claims by the plaintiff's complaint has not been enforced by law. And the courts have already dismissed the cause. The defendant must either find a counterclaim to the plaintiff paid 100,000 plus interest. The plaintiff delivered to defendant's fraudulent loan agreements and to destroy any respect. The request by the counterclaim. The court can not enforce it. If the loan by filing a false document. Is equal to the loan was no evidence in writing. Plaintiff may bring suit to enforce against the two defendants.
Supreme Court in 6168/2547.
Section 14 of the Banking Act 2505 stipulates that the Bank has the power to require banks to perform the following? (2) the interest or discount, the banks may be called the Bank of Thailand, commercial banks charged interest and discounts from all of them is to streamline the banking system with the slowing down of the economy at that time which will cause stability and ensure the operation of commercial banks. The Bank of Thailand announced that Article 4 also requires commercial banks to announce interest rate deposits and loans, the Bank of Thailand within three days to control the commercial banks arbitrarily issue. Bank of Thailand announced that it is the commercial banks operating in the interest or discount that may be one of the Banking Act 2505 empowers the Bank of Thailand and commercial banks, but the alleged void. no.
Supreme Court in 4729/2547.
Loan agreement, the plaintiff sued the four defendants to enforce repayment. The four defendants were awarded the plaintiff. Due to the plaintiff, the four contracts of guarantee and registered the land as security for debt, m B together with loans from the bank. If the plaintiff, all four defendants to repay the bank debt will be liable to the plaintiff on all four contracts. The four plaintiffs in this lawsuit are not payable under the guarantee of bank debt due to the m and b. The defendant is not liable under the loan agreement. The four plaintiffs had no authority to sue.
The four Supreme Court that The defendant agreed to redeem the land title deed to the plaintiff to recover within four to six months, they will have to pay the plaintiff $ 500,000 for four to redeem the mortgage. The agreement is a commitment to them. When not writing and registered with the competent authority. Is not binding on the defendant under Section 526 of the four plaintiffs have no claim to the defendant for the amount of money.
Supreme Court in 3472/2546.
Plaintiff's business to consumer commerce. As well as lending money to pass. The defendant and the plaintiff's customer list that includes many other farmers who are required by the plaintiff's consumer credit loans, and loans to customers. I have a debt that is evidenced by the plaintiff to return the pass. The outstanding debt, thus allowing the plaintiff interest on the debt, such as in the following year. Circumstances such as the benefits of trade in non-interest charge.
Through. He made the loan agreement provided that the plaintiff was owed a debt that I owe under the loan agreement. Existing debts will hold an end to the conversion of debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 349, when it is time to repay the loan through. Not willing to pay to become the default shall be liable for payment to the plaintiff, plus interest at a rate of 15 percent per years of the loan agreement in accordance with Section 224 paragraph one pass. death, the defendant No. 1 as the wife of the past. and the defendant, the second as a statutory heir of the past. be liable to pay such debt to the plaintiff under section 1599 include Sections 1629,1635 (a) and Section 1737.
Supreme Court in 5644/2546.
The plaintiff sued to enforce the compromise agreement. Although the original debt, the debt will come from borrowing. The plaintiff sued the defendant did not repay the loan contract. The plaintiff need not have evidence of the loan in writing signed by the borrower to show to the court.
According to plaintiff's debt payments, the interest and penalty. Indebtedness of the compromise agreement. Non-loan debt, there is no law which prohibits the plaintiff or the interest rate exceeds 15 percent per year.
Supreme Court to 170/2546.
Plaintiffs operate a commercial bank financial institutions.So even a loan agreement between plaintiff and defendant in the annual percentage rate will be left blank by typing a number. The agreement says that the borrower will pay interest to lenders in the highest rate of Bank of Thailand, commercial banks can charge borrowers. It also stated that the borrower will pay interest to lenders in general, the highest rate of interest on loans, the lender shall make a loan from them. This means that After the contract. Bank of Thailand announced a change in interest rates or the lender allows the borrower to the lender under the agreement bear interest at the rate of the Bank or the Lenders shall be announced soon. Without any change to its borrowers and to comply with this until the borrower will repay in full. The agreement required by the legal rate of interest is expressed. And whether the Bank of Thailand to act in the interest of the banks and the discount will be part of the loan or not. The plaintiff charged the defendant in the interest rate does not exceed the interest rate announced by Bank of Thailand, which plaintiff would be entitled under the law. The plaintiff, therefore, prefer to think of the interest rate.
Supreme Court in 6449/2544.
The court has ordered the plaintiff is a trustee of the grade on May 21, 2540 after that date would be the heir to the estate management and any legal action against third parties only where the plaintiff has paid the loan off. . the defendant shall transfer the land to pay debts to the defendants on June 10, 2540, is the heir of the defendant, I would rather I not entitled to receive payment of the transfer of land to repay the loan is not equivalent. debt owed by an amount equal to the market price of the land on which the date of delivery. Contrary to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 656, paragraph one, and void under Article 656 paragraph does not make any loans.
Supreme Court in 1550/2539.
Request a credit agreement that would grant the plaintiff to pay the deposit in the account are insufficient for an indefinite period, but the defendants agreed to repay the loan plus interest at the maximum rate of the Bank of Thailand. It is the interest in advance can be considered that the defendant agrees to provide the plaintiff with interest at the rate of such plants are not subject to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 654 which prohibits charging interest in excess of fifteen percent per year, it is not a loan and the plaintiff is a commercial bank. agreement with the law without a penalty.
