Section 680 guarantees that the third party is called a secured creditor is bound to. To pay the debt when the debtor fails to pay the debt.
The contract is guaranteed. If there is no evidence either in writing signed by the guarantor is the key. He claims that the court can not
Section 681 which will not only guarantee the debt completely.
Future debt obligations or conditions. To ensure that the debt may be a true insurance.
The contract, which is not bound by the debt incurred by the debtor, because it made a mistake, or because they are incompetent. It might be completely guaranteed. If the wrong key to the guarantor or the inability to enter into a contract to be bound.
Section 682 that person will be allowed into Guarantor of the guarantor. Is an additional layer of security to guarantee it.
If they are not the same as the guarantor of the debt they guarantee you that soon becomes a liability to the debtor together. Even if it has not been secured together.
Section 683 which guarantees that there is no limit to the interest and compensation for the unpaid debt. As well as the sale, the creditors of the device itself.
Section 684 of the guarantor shall be liable for court fees, which would require the debtor to the creditors. However, if the plaintiff's case without requiring the payment guarantee before the gem. You may find that the guarantor is liable for the court fees so.
Section 685 is on the enforcement of the guarantee agreement. Guarantor fails to pay all debts of the debtor. Including interest. Compensation. And a gem. How much debt remains. That the debtor will remain liable to creditors for the rest of it.
Supreme Court in 1067/2552.
The plaintiff sued the defendant in a liability to pay a fine because the contract for 4 to the defendants 2 to guarantee the contracts of the total 4 to the defendant that a wrong contract plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation and secured a contract by contract. The plaintiff sued the enforcement of contracts, including four different configurations to adapt it. Consider the amount of each contract. The funds of the case must be determined by contracts and guarantees. Such a contract. The petition claimed that the dispute between the floor of the contracts, not exceeding two hundred thousand baht. Is prohibited by law, in fact P.wi.p. Section 248 paragraph one.
The plaintiff sued the penalty and interest, think of day case is 7325.37 and the insurance contract, including interest me today filed a 3212.57 Baht 10,537.94 U.S. District Court and a fine of 3,000 baht outstanding fines, the case is in appeal to 7537.94. which is claimed in the lawsuit had claimed that the Court of Appeal is well on the floor. Shall not exceed five thousand, which must appeal to facts P.wi.p. Section 224, paragraph one of the plaintiff's appeal on the issue of determining a penalty appeal in the Court of Appeal in fact false, it does not like. Although plaintiff may agree with the penalty of a fine Supreme Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in this section shall be resolved pursuant to Section 142 (5).
National Procurement Regulations 2535, with rates adjusted to the government and the general practice is for. Of equality and fairness. If each government to set a penalty if the breach would cause. Laklaen unfair. It does not mean that the penalty prescribed in the regulations would be appropriate for all cases when the penalty is a penalty to the damages in advance. If more than most. The court has the power to be reduced by an amount sufficient to Section 383 paragraph one.
With the guarantee that. Agree to be bound by the conditions to guarantee the respect in the same way. The most loans. The plaintiff demanded of defendant No. 2 immediately, without calling the defendant a debt which the defendant is already liable to be jointly liable with the second defendant to the plaintiff as a settlement with the debtor.
Supreme Court in 6950/2551.
Bank guarantees payment under the loan guarantees to the Customs Court. Duties and to settle down some. The bank is subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff under the second paragraph of Section 693 and Section 229 (3), but when money is not worth the duty payable to the bank and the defendant must pay the extra money. The plaintiff has sued the authority, duties and payment of part of the defendant. Receivables from the floor.
The plaintiff called the bank to guarantee payment under the guarantee of the delay, but the Customs Act (No.9), BE 2482, Section 19's no time limit for bank guarantees the right to payment under the contract. Guarantees of non-payment of import duties and surcharges under Section 19 bis The base age of 10 years under Section 193/31.
Supreme Court in 2111/2551.
Creditor and the debtor (defendant), the second agreement the debt of the debtor (defendant) to plead guilty to one by the debtor's Thor. Creditor and the debtor is a guarantor of the two in the same debt as the debtor would be liable under the second paragraph of Section 682 and Section 229, 296 of which Thor accepts payment from the debtor and 2. debt by a debtor to withdraw the second lawsuit in a civil case would benefit only the debtor's creditors, the debt to only two. The two accounts can not be held liable for T. anymore because the remaining debt for debtor under Section 340 to the second stop, so if the next payment due to any of the T.. It may take recourse to remove the two accounts was not the case anymore, and secured creditors, who together are entitled to apply for two loans to pay their debts in bankruptcy for the amount that can be used right away. Premiums in the future. Section 101 of the Bankruptcy Act, creditors can not obtain payment from the debtor's assets 2.
Supreme Court in 1876/2551.
Defendant that a contract overdraft and the loan to the bank accounts of four million baht and interest by the plaintiff, defendant, 2 and 3, with another 6 people, a bank guarantee in the amount of difference to the wrong accounts and under. Section 682, paragraph two, when the plaintiff pay the defendant an amount of 4.88 million baht to the bank. Plaintiff, the defendant shall have recourse to a bank and the right of recourse to the guarantor according to another. The guarantor, each bound obligations under Section 693 and Section 229 (3), 296, the Court is ruling in a civil case, the defendant, 2 and 3, together with the defendant at a pay of 3,020,952.37 Baht to the plaintiff, plus interest. It does not specify the proportion of the liability of the defendant and the plaintiff has brought three with debt such as a bankruptcy filing that three defendants. The Civil Court issued an order to amend errors or errors of the ruling passion. As already mentioned by the defendant, 2 and 3, with the first defendant to pay the principal and interest to the plaintiff by the defendant, 2 and 3 of the agreement. Despite the amendment of the Civil Court in the proceedings, the defendants raised three new claims in this appeal. But the bankruptcy law relating to public order and in accordance with Section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act, the court must consider the fact that under Section 9 or Section 10 of the Supreme Court has the power to hear witnesses, documents. said. The fact received that the defendant No. 3 is jointly liable with the defendant, the second portion of the agreement in the amount of just $ 500,000 and outstanding determined to prosecute this to 1,000,000 baht against the plaintiff does not like. The Bankruptcy Act and Section 9 (2).
Supreme Court in 8286/2550.
Contract of guarantee on a specified defendant that the two guarantees of defendants 1 and joined in the plaintiff by application dated October 5, 2525, the liability of the defendant No. 2 shall be the defendant, a breach of contract labor to plaintiff or violations related to the work as contract labor to the plaintiff while the officer or the defendant No. 2 in the agreement are guaranteed by Article 1, even if the guarantee clause 4 states that the defendant, the two acknowledge and agree that if the plaintiff Oikigai appointed shuffle or dismissal of a defendant to work with any of its subsidiaries or branch offices of the guarantee contract shall be deemed effective at the same time. It means only that the defendant, two as a guarantor will be liable to the plaintiff on the defendant to an action for damages to the plaintiff while the defendant is a work based on the plaintiff or a subsidiary of the plaintiff in a staff person as guarantor. only. When the plaintiff to the defendant that a move from a staff person to act like a salesperson. Which increases the risk and liability of the defendant, two more than is specified in the contract guarantees that a defendant caused the damage and the second defendant was not liable to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 5133/2550.
The defendant says that the second agreement. The plaintiff agrees to accept the fact that one is an employee of the plaintiff on June 1, 2543 Defendant No. 2 to the contract that if the defendant is one which the plaintiff was damaged because it acted as the defendant, the two refused to pay the debt with. The first defendant to the plaintiff as the guarantor of the guarantee would have done so even before the defendant entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff. But the insurance liability in debt as a debt to future events that may occur or not occur at the second paragraph of Section 681 was later accused of misappropriation of property debt is first incurred. The second defendant has agreed to guarantee the defendant is liable under a guarantee agreement, 2.
Supreme Court to 539/2550.
Contract guarantees the accused the defendant, the court ordered that if the escape and the Sun is how much money the plaintiff. Defendant responsible for plaintiff to pay fines instead of total If the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's expressed intention to bind directly The defendant to the plaintiff is not bound to pay debt service on the MP is not a guarantee agreement under Section 680 if it is a reciprocal agreement in force between the plaintiff and defendant only. And not in the nature of instrument to stamp duty under Section 6 of the Income Tax Cert.
Supreme Court to 392/2550.
The first page contains a guarantee that a defendant is a defendant in two accounts are secured and that "50 million loan guarantee for U.S." In addition, the contract clause 1 states that "the request of the guarantor. Bank credit to the defendant to get a bank to pay the amount of 50 million meters under the U.S. "Article 2 states that" if the defendant is a guarantor, and hereinafter referred to as the debtor behavior. breach of contract provided. Or have acted otherwise. As a result, banks have to pay money or have been damaged in some way, then the guarantor accepting the refund to the Bank to complete the full amount of debt the debtor owes to the bank and the debtor's "from the agreement, the defendant 2. not their intention to guarantee the payment obligations of the defendant, a debt of just under 50 million line of credit only if the bank, so I give credit to the defendant that such a limit would be beyond the intent of the defendant at the second defendants. 2 shall not be liable to the transferee bank, as well as the plaintiff claims in excess of the principal amount guaranteed.
The contract guarantees that the two defendants would pay the bank interest and interest on the debt I owe the money amount of devices that guarantee the defendant would be liable to pay interest on the second plaintiff in the amount of guaranteed payments, the figure was 50 million baht. the date of the first defendant to pay interest with the plaintiff. The second defendant is liable not only interest from the date of filing.
Supreme Court in 5133/2550.
The defendant says that the second agreement. The plaintiff agrees to accept the fact that one is an employee of the plaintiff on June 1, 2543 Defendant No. 2 to the contract that if the defendant is one which the plaintiff was damaged because it acted as the defendant, the two refused to pay the debt with. The first defendant to the plaintiff as the guarantor of the guarantee would have done so even before the defendant entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff. But the insurance liability in debt as a debt to future events that may occur or not occur at the second paragraph of Section 681 was later accused of misappropriation of property debt is first incurred. The second defendant has agreed to guarantee the defendant is liable under a guarantee agreement, 2.
Supreme Court in 5035/2549.
Plaintiff and defendant, 2 and 3 are the guarantors of the debt to the defendant a credit guarantee corporation Mae funds are not equal. Plaintiff and defendant, 2 and 3, it is liable to the debtor, together with the Finance District, Section 682, paragraph two, when the plaintiff pay the defendant's corporate financial district, where a U.S. $ 4,838,567.40 to the plaintiff. would inherit the right of recourse to the District Finance Corporation, the defendant, 2 and 3, the same as under Section 229 (3) and section 296 2 and 3, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, each U.S. $ 1,612,855.80 plus interest. rate of 7.5 percent per year from the date on which the plaintiff paid money to the Finance District, until payment is made.
Supreme Court in 1797/2549.
Guarantee that the plaintiff and the defendant (1) states that "the guarantees are not secured debts are those owed to the Bank in partnership with the Ministry prior to the date of this Agreement. And is currently in contract obligations and liabilities, including debts owed to the bank after the date of such agreement ... "guarantee contract as a form of contract that the defendant made ready for use. guarantee all types. In a comprehensive agreement with the debtor is liable in the past, present and future, which may not meet the intent of the parties. When it appears that the plaintiff intended to guarantee debts that may arise from the Partnership A. The defendant issued guarantees, tender guarantees of compliance with building or construction contracts only. Are not intended to guarantee the liabilities of the other defendants, the Partnership A. The deposit of the plaintiff against the defendant to pay loans and overdraft debt of A Limited Partnership, thus causing damage to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 5985/2548.
The second defendant, the plaintiff states that the agreement would guarantee the debt of the two defendants that since the existing debt agreements or that we will continue in the future by the defendant No. 2 shall be liable to the Bank. a. The transfer of credit to the plaintiff. Until it is paid back completely, so I guarantee they will have done well at the Bank since July, according to the request to open letters of credit agreements and trust receipts. And whether the loan request before the opening letters of credit and asset Series C No. 2, the defendant will agree with us or not. However, such guarantee shall not be binding. The contract is not unfair. It was the second contract, the defendant agrees to insure the liability of the debts of the company since it emerged in the future in advance. Which shall have the same effect as Section 681, paragraph two.
Supreme Court in 4057/2548.
Guarantee contract is a contract where the guarantor is liable, but only one. Interpretation that the guarantors liability must be strictly implemented. Be interpreted in a way to extend the liability of the guarantee summarized in table other than the express contract is not guaranteed. The defendant entered into an agreement guaranteeing the performance of the pharmacist. Any day means the defendant will guarantee the functioning of the pharmacist. From the date the agreement forward. I mean, not yet secured debt. Owe the plaintiff the defendant was previously agreed that it is the guarantor, which expands the liability of the guarantor. If the plaintiff wishes to make the defendant liable for the debt yet. Which occurred before the defendant is a guarantor, it must be stated clearly. When the contract of guarantee is not expressly stated that the defendants plead guilty in cases where the pharmacist. Which occurred before the contract date. But the plaintiff to sue the debt owed to the pharmacist. Which occurred before the defendant is the guarantor. The defendant is not liable to pay a debt to the plaintiff sued.
Supreme Court in 5985/2548.
The second defendant, the plaintiff states that the agreement would guarantee the debt of the two defendants that since the existing debt agreements or that we will continue in the future by the defendant No. 2 shall be liable to the Bank. a. The transfer of credit to the plaintiff. Until it is paid back completely, so I guarantee they will have done well at the Bank since July, according to the request to open letters of credit agreements and trust receipts. And whether the loan request before the opening letters of credit and asset Series C No. 2, the defendant will agree with us or not. However, such guarantee shall not be binding. The contract is not unfair. It was the second contract, the defendant agrees to insure the liability of the debts of the company since it emerged in the future in advance. Which shall have the same effect as Section 681, paragraph two.
Supreme Court in 5242/2547.
The two lower courts ruled that the defendant is a debtor and a guarantor of the debtor, the two defendants jointly liable for repayment by the plaintiff sued. If both the defendant and the plaintiff fails to pay or pay less than the mortgage, the mortgaged property from the defendant does not have an obligation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff still has the right to force liquidation of the assets of the defendants took two completely so I have to mention that if you took the mortgage of the mortgaged property of a defendant who has not enough money to pay debts. The plaintiff is entitled to enforce payment of the other assets of the two other defendants did not.
Supreme Court in 6369/2547.
Defendant's agreement to the District, under Article 1 states that the District Court accepted a job in sales if I have caused to the plaintiff the debt or any other action to cause damage. Up to the plaintiff. The defendant agrees to pay the debt and damages for all the crimes committed by the District does not claim responsibility for any of the flick itself. The agreement will no guarantees, either in a sales position with no time limit whatsoever. I said that I had secured a position in sales only. When the plaintiff was promoted to District Manager, which increases the risk and liability for the defendant without notice to the defendant and the defendant do not agree with us. The defendant is not liable under a guarantee agreement for damage done while I served as branch manager of the plaintiff. Supreme Court of the 5746/2545 agreement specified that defendant. "Agree to be bound as guarantor T. Department of Revenue is limited to a sum not exceeding U.S. $ 2,097,425 and funds" as those terms mean. Guarantee defendants a tax debt not exceeding U.S. $ 2,097,425 to fund an additional part. The collateralized debt with tax money does not exceed U.S. $ 2,097,425.
Supreme Court to 598/2544.
Contract guarantees and mortgage insurance between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 agreed to guarantee the debt in the future of the defendants one by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 681, paragraph two, provided that the debt in the future, insurance, and Article 707 stipulates that the provisions of Section 681 as guarantors. that You can apply for a mortgage as it should be so even if the two defendants entered into a guarantee agreement, mortgage, and before the defendants. One of the three plaintiff loan will be jointly liable with the defendant, a debt arising from loans that are three times as well.
Supreme Court in 2029/2541.
The text in the document, which has meant that the defendants 2 and 3, I certify that a defendant has a right to be the product of the plaintiff if the defendant is a defendant fails to pay the debt, 2 and 3 will pay for it. The documents show that the defendant, 2 and 3, secured debt of the defendant. In the future, and to guarantee an unlimited amount of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 2718/2515.
The Court of Appeals for the 2nd defendant as the guarantor of the plaintiff's court fees. The defendant in that case the plaintiff loses, the second is based on the Code of Civil Procedure Section 161, the second defendant is the guarantor on grounds that the plaintiff did not claim before the Court. The exception to liability for court fees and that the debtor must be given to creditors under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 684 can not.
The contract is guaranteed. If there is no evidence either in writing signed by the guarantor is the key. He claims that the court can not
Section 681 which will not only guarantee the debt completely.
Future debt obligations or conditions. To ensure that the debt may be a true insurance.
The contract, which is not bound by the debt incurred by the debtor, because it made a mistake, or because they are incompetent. It might be completely guaranteed. If the wrong key to the guarantor or the inability to enter into a contract to be bound.
Section 682 that person will be allowed into Guarantor of the guarantor. Is an additional layer of security to guarantee it.
If they are not the same as the guarantor of the debt they guarantee you that soon becomes a liability to the debtor together. Even if it has not been secured together.
Section 683 which guarantees that there is no limit to the interest and compensation for the unpaid debt. As well as the sale, the creditors of the device itself.
Section 684 of the guarantor shall be liable for court fees, which would require the debtor to the creditors. However, if the plaintiff's case without requiring the payment guarantee before the gem. You may find that the guarantor is liable for the court fees so.
Section 685 is on the enforcement of the guarantee agreement. Guarantor fails to pay all debts of the debtor. Including interest. Compensation. And a gem. How much debt remains. That the debtor will remain liable to creditors for the rest of it.
Supreme Court in 1067/2552.
The plaintiff sued the defendant in a liability to pay a fine because the contract for 4 to the defendants 2 to guarantee the contracts of the total 4 to the defendant that a wrong contract plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation and secured a contract by contract. The plaintiff sued the enforcement of contracts, including four different configurations to adapt it. Consider the amount of each contract. The funds of the case must be determined by contracts and guarantees. Such a contract. The petition claimed that the dispute between the floor of the contracts, not exceeding two hundred thousand baht. Is prohibited by law, in fact P.wi.p. Section 248 paragraph one.
The plaintiff sued the penalty and interest, think of day case is 7325.37 and the insurance contract, including interest me today filed a 3212.57 Baht 10,537.94 U.S. District Court and a fine of 3,000 baht outstanding fines, the case is in appeal to 7537.94. which is claimed in the lawsuit had claimed that the Court of Appeal is well on the floor. Shall not exceed five thousand, which must appeal to facts P.wi.p. Section 224, paragraph one of the plaintiff's appeal on the issue of determining a penalty appeal in the Court of Appeal in fact false, it does not like. Although plaintiff may agree with the penalty of a fine Supreme Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in this section shall be resolved pursuant to Section 142 (5).
National Procurement Regulations 2535, with rates adjusted to the government and the general practice is for. Of equality and fairness. If each government to set a penalty if the breach would cause. Laklaen unfair. It does not mean that the penalty prescribed in the regulations would be appropriate for all cases when the penalty is a penalty to the damages in advance. If more than most. The court has the power to be reduced by an amount sufficient to Section 383 paragraph one.
With the guarantee that. Agree to be bound by the conditions to guarantee the respect in the same way. The most loans. The plaintiff demanded of defendant No. 2 immediately, without calling the defendant a debt which the defendant is already liable to be jointly liable with the second defendant to the plaintiff as a settlement with the debtor.
Supreme Court in 6950/2551.
Bank guarantees payment under the loan guarantees to the Customs Court. Duties and to settle down some. The bank is subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff under the second paragraph of Section 693 and Section 229 (3), but when money is not worth the duty payable to the bank and the defendant must pay the extra money. The plaintiff has sued the authority, duties and payment of part of the defendant. Receivables from the floor.
The plaintiff called the bank to guarantee payment under the guarantee of the delay, but the Customs Act (No.9), BE 2482, Section 19's no time limit for bank guarantees the right to payment under the contract. Guarantees of non-payment of import duties and surcharges under Section 19 bis The base age of 10 years under Section 193/31.
Supreme Court in 2111/2551.
Creditor and the debtor (defendant), the second agreement the debt of the debtor (defendant) to plead guilty to one by the debtor's Thor. Creditor and the debtor is a guarantor of the two in the same debt as the debtor would be liable under the second paragraph of Section 682 and Section 229, 296 of which Thor accepts payment from the debtor and 2. debt by a debtor to withdraw the second lawsuit in a civil case would benefit only the debtor's creditors, the debt to only two. The two accounts can not be held liable for T. anymore because the remaining debt for debtor under Section 340 to the second stop, so if the next payment due to any of the T.. It may take recourse to remove the two accounts was not the case anymore, and secured creditors, who together are entitled to apply for two loans to pay their debts in bankruptcy for the amount that can be used right away. Premiums in the future. Section 101 of the Bankruptcy Act, creditors can not obtain payment from the debtor's assets 2.
Supreme Court in 1876/2551.
Defendant that a contract overdraft and the loan to the bank accounts of four million baht and interest by the plaintiff, defendant, 2 and 3, with another 6 people, a bank guarantee in the amount of difference to the wrong accounts and under. Section 682, paragraph two, when the plaintiff pay the defendant an amount of 4.88 million baht to the bank. Plaintiff, the defendant shall have recourse to a bank and the right of recourse to the guarantor according to another. The guarantor, each bound obligations under Section 693 and Section 229 (3), 296, the Court is ruling in a civil case, the defendant, 2 and 3, together with the defendant at a pay of 3,020,952.37 Baht to the plaintiff, plus interest. It does not specify the proportion of the liability of the defendant and the plaintiff has brought three with debt such as a bankruptcy filing that three defendants. The Civil Court issued an order to amend errors or errors of the ruling passion. As already mentioned by the defendant, 2 and 3, with the first defendant to pay the principal and interest to the plaintiff by the defendant, 2 and 3 of the agreement. Despite the amendment of the Civil Court in the proceedings, the defendants raised three new claims in this appeal. But the bankruptcy law relating to public order and in accordance with Section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act, the court must consider the fact that under Section 9 or Section 10 of the Supreme Court has the power to hear witnesses, documents. said. The fact received that the defendant No. 3 is jointly liable with the defendant, the second portion of the agreement in the amount of just $ 500,000 and outstanding determined to prosecute this to 1,000,000 baht against the plaintiff does not like. The Bankruptcy Act and Section 9 (2).
Supreme Court in 8286/2550.
Contract of guarantee on a specified defendant that the two guarantees of defendants 1 and joined in the plaintiff by application dated October 5, 2525, the liability of the defendant No. 2 shall be the defendant, a breach of contract labor to plaintiff or violations related to the work as contract labor to the plaintiff while the officer or the defendant No. 2 in the agreement are guaranteed by Article 1, even if the guarantee clause 4 states that the defendant, the two acknowledge and agree that if the plaintiff Oikigai appointed shuffle or dismissal of a defendant to work with any of its subsidiaries or branch offices of the guarantee contract shall be deemed effective at the same time. It means only that the defendant, two as a guarantor will be liable to the plaintiff on the defendant to an action for damages to the plaintiff while the defendant is a work based on the plaintiff or a subsidiary of the plaintiff in a staff person as guarantor. only. When the plaintiff to the defendant that a move from a staff person to act like a salesperson. Which increases the risk and liability of the defendant, two more than is specified in the contract guarantees that a defendant caused the damage and the second defendant was not liable to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 5133/2550.
The defendant says that the second agreement. The plaintiff agrees to accept the fact that one is an employee of the plaintiff on June 1, 2543 Defendant No. 2 to the contract that if the defendant is one which the plaintiff was damaged because it acted as the defendant, the two refused to pay the debt with. The first defendant to the plaintiff as the guarantor of the guarantee would have done so even before the defendant entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff. But the insurance liability in debt as a debt to future events that may occur or not occur at the second paragraph of Section 681 was later accused of misappropriation of property debt is first incurred. The second defendant has agreed to guarantee the defendant is liable under a guarantee agreement, 2.
Supreme Court to 539/2550.
Contract guarantees the accused the defendant, the court ordered that if the escape and the Sun is how much money the plaintiff. Defendant responsible for plaintiff to pay fines instead of total If the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's expressed intention to bind directly The defendant to the plaintiff is not bound to pay debt service on the MP is not a guarantee agreement under Section 680 if it is a reciprocal agreement in force between the plaintiff and defendant only. And not in the nature of instrument to stamp duty under Section 6 of the Income Tax Cert.
Supreme Court to 392/2550.
The first page contains a guarantee that a defendant is a defendant in two accounts are secured and that "50 million loan guarantee for U.S." In addition, the contract clause 1 states that "the request of the guarantor. Bank credit to the defendant to get a bank to pay the amount of 50 million meters under the U.S. "Article 2 states that" if the defendant is a guarantor, and hereinafter referred to as the debtor behavior. breach of contract provided. Or have acted otherwise. As a result, banks have to pay money or have been damaged in some way, then the guarantor accepting the refund to the Bank to complete the full amount of debt the debtor owes to the bank and the debtor's "from the agreement, the defendant 2. not their intention to guarantee the payment obligations of the defendant, a debt of just under 50 million line of credit only if the bank, so I give credit to the defendant that such a limit would be beyond the intent of the defendant at the second defendants. 2 shall not be liable to the transferee bank, as well as the plaintiff claims in excess of the principal amount guaranteed.
The contract guarantees that the two defendants would pay the bank interest and interest on the debt I owe the money amount of devices that guarantee the defendant would be liable to pay interest on the second plaintiff in the amount of guaranteed payments, the figure was 50 million baht. the date of the first defendant to pay interest with the plaintiff. The second defendant is liable not only interest from the date of filing.
Supreme Court in 5133/2550.
The defendant says that the second agreement. The plaintiff agrees to accept the fact that one is an employee of the plaintiff on June 1, 2543 Defendant No. 2 to the contract that if the defendant is one which the plaintiff was damaged because it acted as the defendant, the two refused to pay the debt with. The first defendant to the plaintiff as the guarantor of the guarantee would have done so even before the defendant entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff. But the insurance liability in debt as a debt to future events that may occur or not occur at the second paragraph of Section 681 was later accused of misappropriation of property debt is first incurred. The second defendant has agreed to guarantee the defendant is liable under a guarantee agreement, 2.
Supreme Court in 5035/2549.
Plaintiff and defendant, 2 and 3 are the guarantors of the debt to the defendant a credit guarantee corporation Mae funds are not equal. Plaintiff and defendant, 2 and 3, it is liable to the debtor, together with the Finance District, Section 682, paragraph two, when the plaintiff pay the defendant's corporate financial district, where a U.S. $ 4,838,567.40 to the plaintiff. would inherit the right of recourse to the District Finance Corporation, the defendant, 2 and 3, the same as under Section 229 (3) and section 296 2 and 3, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, each U.S. $ 1,612,855.80 plus interest. rate of 7.5 percent per year from the date on which the plaintiff paid money to the Finance District, until payment is made.
Supreme Court in 1797/2549.
Guarantee that the plaintiff and the defendant (1) states that "the guarantees are not secured debts are those owed to the Bank in partnership with the Ministry prior to the date of this Agreement. And is currently in contract obligations and liabilities, including debts owed to the bank after the date of such agreement ... "guarantee contract as a form of contract that the defendant made ready for use. guarantee all types. In a comprehensive agreement with the debtor is liable in the past, present and future, which may not meet the intent of the parties. When it appears that the plaintiff intended to guarantee debts that may arise from the Partnership A. The defendant issued guarantees, tender guarantees of compliance with building or construction contracts only. Are not intended to guarantee the liabilities of the other defendants, the Partnership A. The deposit of the plaintiff against the defendant to pay loans and overdraft debt of A Limited Partnership, thus causing damage to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 5985/2548.
The second defendant, the plaintiff states that the agreement would guarantee the debt of the two defendants that since the existing debt agreements or that we will continue in the future by the defendant No. 2 shall be liable to the Bank. a. The transfer of credit to the plaintiff. Until it is paid back completely, so I guarantee they will have done well at the Bank since July, according to the request to open letters of credit agreements and trust receipts. And whether the loan request before the opening letters of credit and asset Series C No. 2, the defendant will agree with us or not. However, such guarantee shall not be binding. The contract is not unfair. It was the second contract, the defendant agrees to insure the liability of the debts of the company since it emerged in the future in advance. Which shall have the same effect as Section 681, paragraph two.
Supreme Court in 4057/2548.
Guarantee contract is a contract where the guarantor is liable, but only one. Interpretation that the guarantors liability must be strictly implemented. Be interpreted in a way to extend the liability of the guarantee summarized in table other than the express contract is not guaranteed. The defendant entered into an agreement guaranteeing the performance of the pharmacist. Any day means the defendant will guarantee the functioning of the pharmacist. From the date the agreement forward. I mean, not yet secured debt. Owe the plaintiff the defendant was previously agreed that it is the guarantor, which expands the liability of the guarantor. If the plaintiff wishes to make the defendant liable for the debt yet. Which occurred before the defendant is a guarantor, it must be stated clearly. When the contract of guarantee is not expressly stated that the defendants plead guilty in cases where the pharmacist. Which occurred before the contract date. But the plaintiff to sue the debt owed to the pharmacist. Which occurred before the defendant is the guarantor. The defendant is not liable to pay a debt to the plaintiff sued.
Supreme Court in 5985/2548.
The second defendant, the plaintiff states that the agreement would guarantee the debt of the two defendants that since the existing debt agreements or that we will continue in the future by the defendant No. 2 shall be liable to the Bank. a. The transfer of credit to the plaintiff. Until it is paid back completely, so I guarantee they will have done well at the Bank since July, according to the request to open letters of credit agreements and trust receipts. And whether the loan request before the opening letters of credit and asset Series C No. 2, the defendant will agree with us or not. However, such guarantee shall not be binding. The contract is not unfair. It was the second contract, the defendant agrees to insure the liability of the debts of the company since it emerged in the future in advance. Which shall have the same effect as Section 681, paragraph two.
Supreme Court in 5242/2547.
The two lower courts ruled that the defendant is a debtor and a guarantor of the debtor, the two defendants jointly liable for repayment by the plaintiff sued. If both the defendant and the plaintiff fails to pay or pay less than the mortgage, the mortgaged property from the defendant does not have an obligation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff still has the right to force liquidation of the assets of the defendants took two completely so I have to mention that if you took the mortgage of the mortgaged property of a defendant who has not enough money to pay debts. The plaintiff is entitled to enforce payment of the other assets of the two other defendants did not.
Supreme Court in 6369/2547.
Defendant's agreement to the District, under Article 1 states that the District Court accepted a job in sales if I have caused to the plaintiff the debt or any other action to cause damage. Up to the plaintiff. The defendant agrees to pay the debt and damages for all the crimes committed by the District does not claim responsibility for any of the flick itself. The agreement will no guarantees, either in a sales position with no time limit whatsoever. I said that I had secured a position in sales only. When the plaintiff was promoted to District Manager, which increases the risk and liability for the defendant without notice to the defendant and the defendant do not agree with us. The defendant is not liable under a guarantee agreement for damage done while I served as branch manager of the plaintiff. Supreme Court of the 5746/2545 agreement specified that defendant. "Agree to be bound as guarantor T. Department of Revenue is limited to a sum not exceeding U.S. $ 2,097,425 and funds" as those terms mean. Guarantee defendants a tax debt not exceeding U.S. $ 2,097,425 to fund an additional part. The collateralized debt with tax money does not exceed U.S. $ 2,097,425.
Supreme Court to 598/2544.
Contract guarantees and mortgage insurance between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 agreed to guarantee the debt in the future of the defendants one by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 681, paragraph two, provided that the debt in the future, insurance, and Article 707 stipulates that the provisions of Section 681 as guarantors. that You can apply for a mortgage as it should be so even if the two defendants entered into a guarantee agreement, mortgage, and before the defendants. One of the three plaintiff loan will be jointly liable with the defendant, a debt arising from loans that are three times as well.
Supreme Court in 2029/2541.
The text in the document, which has meant that the defendants 2 and 3, I certify that a defendant has a right to be the product of the plaintiff if the defendant is a defendant fails to pay the debt, 2 and 3 will pay for it. The documents show that the defendant, 2 and 3, secured debt of the defendant. In the future, and to guarantee an unlimited amount of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 2718/2515.
The Court of Appeals for the 2nd defendant as the guarantor of the plaintiff's court fees. The defendant in that case the plaintiff loses, the second is based on the Code of Civil Procedure Section 161, the second defendant is the guarantor on grounds that the plaintiff did not claim before the Court. The exception to liability for court fees and that the debtor must be given to creditors under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 684 can not.
