Section 698 would release the guarantor from liability on the debt of the debtor as to whether the suspension for any reason.
Section 699 guarantees for business and so on several occasions that there is no time limit to your creditors. You may not be the one that guarantees the future. The purpose of the notice to creditors.
In such a case. I guarantee you will not be liable for its debts, it was done after notice to creditors.
Section 700 is secured debt must be paid at the time of the course. Creditors and debtors will pay for the gem. You will recall that the guarantor from liability.
If the guarantor has agreed to pay in time. I guarantee you that out of respect not.
Section 701 would guarantee payment to the creditor when due time.
If creditors do not accept payment. I shall release the guarantor from liability.
Supreme Court in 3833/2552.
Debt with the debtor to change the Section 350 prohibition, but it was not only due to the rape. When it is from the testimony of the plaintiff that I had to borrow money to invest, then the second. It is made by the debtor, it would not rape. When the debt under the loan on hold after the second defendant, the guarantor would escape liability under Section 698 of the case the plaintiff sued the defendant liable under a guarantee agreement, the two have sued to force the defendant to two payments. payment under the loan agreements. The Court of Appeal Region five defendants sentenced to 2 liability under the loan agreements. It is too hot or the judge in the indictment do not like Civil Procedure Code Section 142, paragraph one.
Supreme Court in 3513/2551.
Creditors have entered into debt restructuring agreements with Rama pay a debt to the company by a debtor, who is supporting. Insurance does not agree with, or consent to release the debtor shall be in writing. From liability under the conditions specified in the contract are guaranteed and processed. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 700, paragraph one states that the contract restructuring. Debt burdens and benefits in the international debt with its creditors, all of Rama Rama also hold an end to the company fails to pay the debt restructuring agreement. Every creditor has the power to prosecute the original debt. The debtor is not a party to the agreement or do not apply to the debtor when the debtor is released from liability under the letter of guarantee to creditors. Are not entitled to payment of such debt.
Supreme Court in 1732/2550.
Defendant's agreement to pay restitution under the responsibility of the Ministry of the plaintiff but the plaintiff and the Ministry has entered into a compromise with the Ministry will be liable for any liability arising from contractual liability of the Ministry of damage. and the liability of the defendants, who bear A. The insurance settlement and an end to the compromise agreement is liable to the plaintiff under Section 850 and 852 g on the liability of the plaintiff is liable under the compromise agreement. Defendant as a guarantor is released from liability to the contractual obligations of the Ministry responsible for damage to the suspension under Section 698.
Supreme Court in 4479/2550.
Provisions of the law concerning the property to pay debts to the creditors when the debtor is released from liability as a separate subject to the guarantor for repayment to creditors when debt due and payable, refuses to accept payment. As a result, the secured debt relief from liability under Section 701 without the sap.
The three defendants and cashier checks and cash, the amount you receive from the staff of the Bank as a branch of the plaintiff to pay the plaintiff is responsible for debt settlement. It is to pay the creditors on the debt of the guarantor as defined by the three defendants like When employees are involved, the plaintiff refused to pay the third defendant shall be released from liability under Section 701 paragraph two.
Supreme Court to 393/2550.
Letter to the defendant, a debt which the debtor and the creditor is the plaintiff, the plaintiff and will be recognized as debt repayment. Not an un-secured or unsecured. Or the new debt will result in the debt extinguished. When the two defendants plead guilty in loan guarantees for the debt of the defendant that a plaintiff is still liable under the guarantee agreement.
Supreme Court in 2790/2549.
Although the plaintiff did not inform the defendant about the renewal of contract without delay, as stated in the contract of guarantee on second end their messages at the end it was not important as long as you do not comply will cause the beginning is. effective The text at the beginning of this contract. The intent of the defendant with the consent or waiver by the payment of the contract it. Non-contractual obligations that one. If a request or suggestion only. The defendant can not escape liability under Section 700 paragraph two.
It guarantees the defendant the plaintiff returned to the District Partnership Officer due to the negligence of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff did not deliberately intend to District Partnership and the defendant from liability. To guarantee the defendant will receive the surrender of such a document as evidence of one. Which is based on the assumption that the third paragraph of Section 327 shall be suspended due to the end of it. The presumption under the provisions of section assumption is not absolute. A. Partnership continues to be liable for damages and compensation to the plaintiff. The defendant did not release the guarantor from liability under Section 698 of the debt the defendant claimed that the practices of commercial banks in general. When the defendant has been expropriated from the original letter A. The Partnership is a customer in good faith. Return the collateral to the defendant and the defendant is released from liability as a guarantor you can not because of the provisions of law relating to the suspension of guarantees, which causes the end to guarantee relief from liability. As provided specifically in Section 698 to Section 701.
Supreme Court in 6002/2549.
Although the defendant No. 1 and No. 3 agreed with the plaintiff states that it is a compromise agreement. The agreement says that a defendant is charged a premium from insured has not already been delivered to the plaintiff, amounting to U.S. $ 446,855.47 for the reimbursement of the amount of restoring the plaintiff. And repayment of debt, payable by check payable to the plaintiff and the first six installments due the next day. The remaining payments in the coming months, without the intent of the defendant shows the plaintiff to agree to a settlement that would have the grace to live with each other. The agreement is not a compromise agreement. The agency will hold an end to the debt under Section 850 and 852, the second defendant as a guarantor is not released from liability for debts contracted agents.
Supreme Court in 4769/2547.
Debt relief for debtors to escape liability as a guarantor must also agree to pay for it. And the effect is that during that time, the lender will pay claims, so even if the plaintiff is not entitled to return the car hire when the defendant is a good contract. The plaintiff's time to roll out to 8 months to recover from a car lease. It is not the plaintiff, the defendant time to pay a creditor, the debtor I know that the two defendants who secured release from liability under Section 700.
Supreme Court in 3232/2545.
Letter dated October 25, 2538, the second defendant as a guarantor of the plaintiff. To repay debt and redeem the outstanding debt under a mortgage is 250,000 baht, the second defendant to the plaintiff already checked the calculation of interest on the amount. Then inform the defendant of the two within a month to the second defendant to repay debt and redeem the mortgage. The plaintiff does not specify the need to calculate interest. The plaintiff notified the defendant that the second payment of U.S. $ 819,685.54 identified as outstanding as of July 28, 2536 on outstanding claims do not match each other. And the initial interest rate that does not appear to be starting any day. If the two do not match or the defendant intends to repay the debt to be correct. I like to argue to the plaintiff by requesting the repayment of debt is the total debt of Baht 250,000 contract, plus interest from the date of the loan overdraft with the defendant, one for the plaintiff's termination was November 9. 2, 2533, but the defendant can not therefore be considered whether the defendant has requested that the two obligations. And the plaintiff accepted the settlement because the two defendants released from liability under the guarantee, and mortgage contract under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 701 727 and 744 (3).
Supreme Court in 3183/2545.
The first loan guarantee under a guarantee of the debt in the future of a defendant under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 681, paragraph two, but the nature of the guarantee agreement. It guarantees to businesses and so on several occasions without a time limit you to the creditor is the plaintiff bank. Which guarantees the defendant, 5, 6 and 8, may be entitled to terminate the guarantee of the time, the future for the plaintiff under section 699 when the defendant, 6 and 8, sent a letter requesting withdrawal of the guaranteed debt of the defendant: 1. The plaintiff has secured the contract shall be canceled. Plaintiffs to sue to force the defendant to 6 and 8 in the liability as guarantor under the loan No. 2, where a defendant made to plaintiff after the defendant, 6 and 8, to terminate the guarantee to find you.
Supreme Court in 4145/2542.
The defendant No. 2 bank guarantee for the repayment to the plaintiff after the plaintiff sued the defendant, a users overdraft and the defendant's second guarantee is the case, then the debt under overdraft and guarantee the case due settle before filing. The second defendant did not propose the payment to the plaintiff in that period. If it is not a settlement since the debt due by the first paragraph of Section 701, the second defendant is not released from liability.
Debtors filed a lawsuit that was then. Be released from liability only by the amount deemed to be liable to the plaintiff for the court by Section 135 136 Civil Procedure Code only.
Supreme Court in 4283/2542.
The second defendant was brought into a Security Certificate to guarantee the repayment of a case where the defendant since the parties are bound to the plaintiff. The settlement was founded in the nature of a loan guarantee agreement is required under Section 680 paragraph one. Defendants are bound by such documents as the guarantor. Certificate will be awarded to the plaintiff and the defendant abides by them. I find that the effect of the guarantee contract is changed in any way.
Act as if arising from the use of an offense in 2534 as a compromise. When the defendant to the plaintiff as collateral. Since the plaintiff could not pursue criminal prosecution, the check can be used as a support for the commission to come up with a legal guarantee that the objective is contrary to public order or good morals of the people. under Section 150 is not void.
Since the verdict, then the plaintiff is a creditor. The plaintiff accepted the gold and diamonds by the court not to since it does not constitute a debt relief at the verdict by it. A defendant who makes such a guarantee for debt relief from liability because the plaintiff may proceed to court at any time since.
Supreme Court in 4848/2542.
The overdraft of the defendant that the defendant is a second agreement until it is paid by the plaintiff. Entirely due to the April 2, 2534 the defendant terminated the contract of guarantee on the second day. It did not appear. The deductive account balance and payment completed. The book is still current. Termination guarantees that the two defendants are not solely the result of the overdraft is a current contract between the plaintiff and a defendant, it is a binding contract and become an indefinite period of time. When the plaintiff did not receive payment from the defendant, a defendant, as long as the two can not get out of debt as a guarantor.
Supreme Court in 4123/2540.
The guarantee agreement will be expropriated, the contract guarantees the debt. To the presumption under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 327, paragraph three, that the debt to be extinguished. But the presumption is not absolute presupposition. The Contractor shall pay to the plaintiff under the contract. Both appeared to be suspended due to otherwise. And the case is not barred by the provisions of the law by the end of the guarantor under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 698 to 701 plaintiffs also claim that the guarantor was not liable under the guarantee agreement. If the contractor bank securities placed as collateral. Since the contract to guarantee his return, the Bank has the right to deny liability under the guarantee of a particular case, officers and employees of the plaintiff, the defendant and three nights, guarantees to the contractors themselves to the plaintiff, a bank guarantee liability. Held that the plaintiff has been damaged, it must have all three defendants liable under a contract with the contractor.
Supreme Court to 29/2538.
Between plaintiff and defendant, despite assurances that it guarantees to its second consecutive time, there is no time limit as to the creditors of the guarantor may not be for a future time without notice to the wishes of the creditors under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 699, paragraph one, but the contract of guarantee, provided that the guarantor does not terminate the contract unless the person or property is insured to the satisfaction of the plaintiff, defendant, the two do not give guarantees to the plaintiff by no one. or property insurance to the satisfaction of the plaintiff's agreement to guarantee that the second defendant made the plaintiff does not settle the back end.
Supreme Court in 1945/2537.
Guarantees of performance at which the defendant made the plaintiff as collateral for business and so on several occasions. When the defendant terminated the contract of guarantee in writing to the Office of the plaintiff by the defendant at the plaintiff's manager, signed for the period from September 3, 2530 shall terminate a guarantee agreement, effective immediately. Without the Board's approval before implementation of the plaintiff, so that At misappropriate the money to the plaintiff on September 30, 2530 and on October 30, 2530 is the day after the date of the defendant from being the guarantor. The defendant is not liable.
Section 699 guarantees for business and so on several occasions that there is no time limit to your creditors. You may not be the one that guarantees the future. The purpose of the notice to creditors.
In such a case. I guarantee you will not be liable for its debts, it was done after notice to creditors.
Section 700 is secured debt must be paid at the time of the course. Creditors and debtors will pay for the gem. You will recall that the guarantor from liability.
If the guarantor has agreed to pay in time. I guarantee you that out of respect not.
Section 701 would guarantee payment to the creditor when due time.
If creditors do not accept payment. I shall release the guarantor from liability.
Supreme Court in 3833/2552.
Debt with the debtor to change the Section 350 prohibition, but it was not only due to the rape. When it is from the testimony of the plaintiff that I had to borrow money to invest, then the second. It is made by the debtor, it would not rape. When the debt under the loan on hold after the second defendant, the guarantor would escape liability under Section 698 of the case the plaintiff sued the defendant liable under a guarantee agreement, the two have sued to force the defendant to two payments. payment under the loan agreements. The Court of Appeal Region five defendants sentenced to 2 liability under the loan agreements. It is too hot or the judge in the indictment do not like Civil Procedure Code Section 142, paragraph one.
Supreme Court in 3513/2551.
Creditors have entered into debt restructuring agreements with Rama pay a debt to the company by a debtor, who is supporting. Insurance does not agree with, or consent to release the debtor shall be in writing. From liability under the conditions specified in the contract are guaranteed and processed. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 700, paragraph one states that the contract restructuring. Debt burdens and benefits in the international debt with its creditors, all of Rama Rama also hold an end to the company fails to pay the debt restructuring agreement. Every creditor has the power to prosecute the original debt. The debtor is not a party to the agreement or do not apply to the debtor when the debtor is released from liability under the letter of guarantee to creditors. Are not entitled to payment of such debt.
Supreme Court in 1732/2550.
Defendant's agreement to pay restitution under the responsibility of the Ministry of the plaintiff but the plaintiff and the Ministry has entered into a compromise with the Ministry will be liable for any liability arising from contractual liability of the Ministry of damage. and the liability of the defendants, who bear A. The insurance settlement and an end to the compromise agreement is liable to the plaintiff under Section 850 and 852 g on the liability of the plaintiff is liable under the compromise agreement. Defendant as a guarantor is released from liability to the contractual obligations of the Ministry responsible for damage to the suspension under Section 698.
Supreme Court in 4479/2550.
Provisions of the law concerning the property to pay debts to the creditors when the debtor is released from liability as a separate subject to the guarantor for repayment to creditors when debt due and payable, refuses to accept payment. As a result, the secured debt relief from liability under Section 701 without the sap.
The three defendants and cashier checks and cash, the amount you receive from the staff of the Bank as a branch of the plaintiff to pay the plaintiff is responsible for debt settlement. It is to pay the creditors on the debt of the guarantor as defined by the three defendants like When employees are involved, the plaintiff refused to pay the third defendant shall be released from liability under Section 701 paragraph two.
Supreme Court to 393/2550.
Letter to the defendant, a debt which the debtor and the creditor is the plaintiff, the plaintiff and will be recognized as debt repayment. Not an un-secured or unsecured. Or the new debt will result in the debt extinguished. When the two defendants plead guilty in loan guarantees for the debt of the defendant that a plaintiff is still liable under the guarantee agreement.
Supreme Court in 2790/2549.
Although the plaintiff did not inform the defendant about the renewal of contract without delay, as stated in the contract of guarantee on second end their messages at the end it was not important as long as you do not comply will cause the beginning is. effective The text at the beginning of this contract. The intent of the defendant with the consent or waiver by the payment of the contract it. Non-contractual obligations that one. If a request or suggestion only. The defendant can not escape liability under Section 700 paragraph two.
It guarantees the defendant the plaintiff returned to the District Partnership Officer due to the negligence of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff did not deliberately intend to District Partnership and the defendant from liability. To guarantee the defendant will receive the surrender of such a document as evidence of one. Which is based on the assumption that the third paragraph of Section 327 shall be suspended due to the end of it. The presumption under the provisions of section assumption is not absolute. A. Partnership continues to be liable for damages and compensation to the plaintiff. The defendant did not release the guarantor from liability under Section 698 of the debt the defendant claimed that the practices of commercial banks in general. When the defendant has been expropriated from the original letter A. The Partnership is a customer in good faith. Return the collateral to the defendant and the defendant is released from liability as a guarantor you can not because of the provisions of law relating to the suspension of guarantees, which causes the end to guarantee relief from liability. As provided specifically in Section 698 to Section 701.
Supreme Court in 6002/2549.
Although the defendant No. 1 and No. 3 agreed with the plaintiff states that it is a compromise agreement. The agreement says that a defendant is charged a premium from insured has not already been delivered to the plaintiff, amounting to U.S. $ 446,855.47 for the reimbursement of the amount of restoring the plaintiff. And repayment of debt, payable by check payable to the plaintiff and the first six installments due the next day. The remaining payments in the coming months, without the intent of the defendant shows the plaintiff to agree to a settlement that would have the grace to live with each other. The agreement is not a compromise agreement. The agency will hold an end to the debt under Section 850 and 852, the second defendant as a guarantor is not released from liability for debts contracted agents.
Supreme Court in 4769/2547.
Debt relief for debtors to escape liability as a guarantor must also agree to pay for it. And the effect is that during that time, the lender will pay claims, so even if the plaintiff is not entitled to return the car hire when the defendant is a good contract. The plaintiff's time to roll out to 8 months to recover from a car lease. It is not the plaintiff, the defendant time to pay a creditor, the debtor I know that the two defendants who secured release from liability under Section 700.
Supreme Court in 3232/2545.
Letter dated October 25, 2538, the second defendant as a guarantor of the plaintiff. To repay debt and redeem the outstanding debt under a mortgage is 250,000 baht, the second defendant to the plaintiff already checked the calculation of interest on the amount. Then inform the defendant of the two within a month to the second defendant to repay debt and redeem the mortgage. The plaintiff does not specify the need to calculate interest. The plaintiff notified the defendant that the second payment of U.S. $ 819,685.54 identified as outstanding as of July 28, 2536 on outstanding claims do not match each other. And the initial interest rate that does not appear to be starting any day. If the two do not match or the defendant intends to repay the debt to be correct. I like to argue to the plaintiff by requesting the repayment of debt is the total debt of Baht 250,000 contract, plus interest from the date of the loan overdraft with the defendant, one for the plaintiff's termination was November 9. 2, 2533, but the defendant can not therefore be considered whether the defendant has requested that the two obligations. And the plaintiff accepted the settlement because the two defendants released from liability under the guarantee, and mortgage contract under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 701 727 and 744 (3).
Supreme Court in 3183/2545.
The first loan guarantee under a guarantee of the debt in the future of a defendant under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 681, paragraph two, but the nature of the guarantee agreement. It guarantees to businesses and so on several occasions without a time limit you to the creditor is the plaintiff bank. Which guarantees the defendant, 5, 6 and 8, may be entitled to terminate the guarantee of the time, the future for the plaintiff under section 699 when the defendant, 6 and 8, sent a letter requesting withdrawal of the guaranteed debt of the defendant: 1. The plaintiff has secured the contract shall be canceled. Plaintiffs to sue to force the defendant to 6 and 8 in the liability as guarantor under the loan No. 2, where a defendant made to plaintiff after the defendant, 6 and 8, to terminate the guarantee to find you.
Supreme Court in 4145/2542.
The defendant No. 2 bank guarantee for the repayment to the plaintiff after the plaintiff sued the defendant, a users overdraft and the defendant's second guarantee is the case, then the debt under overdraft and guarantee the case due settle before filing. The second defendant did not propose the payment to the plaintiff in that period. If it is not a settlement since the debt due by the first paragraph of Section 701, the second defendant is not released from liability.
Debtors filed a lawsuit that was then. Be released from liability only by the amount deemed to be liable to the plaintiff for the court by Section 135 136 Civil Procedure Code only.
Supreme Court in 4283/2542.
The second defendant was brought into a Security Certificate to guarantee the repayment of a case where the defendant since the parties are bound to the plaintiff. The settlement was founded in the nature of a loan guarantee agreement is required under Section 680 paragraph one. Defendants are bound by such documents as the guarantor. Certificate will be awarded to the plaintiff and the defendant abides by them. I find that the effect of the guarantee contract is changed in any way.
Act as if arising from the use of an offense in 2534 as a compromise. When the defendant to the plaintiff as collateral. Since the plaintiff could not pursue criminal prosecution, the check can be used as a support for the commission to come up with a legal guarantee that the objective is contrary to public order or good morals of the people. under Section 150 is not void.
Since the verdict, then the plaintiff is a creditor. The plaintiff accepted the gold and diamonds by the court not to since it does not constitute a debt relief at the verdict by it. A defendant who makes such a guarantee for debt relief from liability because the plaintiff may proceed to court at any time since.
Supreme Court in 4848/2542.
The overdraft of the defendant that the defendant is a second agreement until it is paid by the plaintiff. Entirely due to the April 2, 2534 the defendant terminated the contract of guarantee on the second day. It did not appear. The deductive account balance and payment completed. The book is still current. Termination guarantees that the two defendants are not solely the result of the overdraft is a current contract between the plaintiff and a defendant, it is a binding contract and become an indefinite period of time. When the plaintiff did not receive payment from the defendant, a defendant, as long as the two can not get out of debt as a guarantor.
Supreme Court in 4123/2540.
The guarantee agreement will be expropriated, the contract guarantees the debt. To the presumption under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 327, paragraph three, that the debt to be extinguished. But the presumption is not absolute presupposition. The Contractor shall pay to the plaintiff under the contract. Both appeared to be suspended due to otherwise. And the case is not barred by the provisions of the law by the end of the guarantor under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 698 to 701 plaintiffs also claim that the guarantor was not liable under the guarantee agreement. If the contractor bank securities placed as collateral. Since the contract to guarantee his return, the Bank has the right to deny liability under the guarantee of a particular case, officers and employees of the plaintiff, the defendant and three nights, guarantees to the contractors themselves to the plaintiff, a bank guarantee liability. Held that the plaintiff has been damaged, it must have all three defendants liable under a contract with the contractor.
Supreme Court to 29/2538.
Between plaintiff and defendant, despite assurances that it guarantees to its second consecutive time, there is no time limit as to the creditors of the guarantor may not be for a future time without notice to the wishes of the creditors under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 699, paragraph one, but the contract of guarantee, provided that the guarantor does not terminate the contract unless the person or property is insured to the satisfaction of the plaintiff, defendant, the two do not give guarantees to the plaintiff by no one. or property insurance to the satisfaction of the plaintiff's agreement to guarantee that the second defendant made the plaintiff does not settle the back end.
Supreme Court in 1945/2537.
Guarantees of performance at which the defendant made the plaintiff as collateral for business and so on several occasions. When the defendant terminated the contract of guarantee in writing to the Office of the plaintiff by the defendant at the plaintiff's manager, signed for the period from September 3, 2530 shall terminate a guarantee agreement, effective immediately. Without the Board's approval before implementation of the plaintiff, so that At misappropriate the money to the plaintiff on September 30, 2530 and on October 30, 2530 is the day after the date of the defendant from being the guarantor. The defendant is not liable.
