Section 491
sell with right of redemption where ownership of the property falls to the
buyer. It is
agreed that the seller may redeem the property.
Section 492. In the
case of redeeming the assets, which are sold within the time specified in the
contract or within the time prescribed by law. The
redeemer has placed a sack of property to the property office within the
redemption period by waiving the right to withdraw the property that was placed. Assets
that are redeemed are the property of the Redeemer from the time the Redeemer
has paid for the Redeemer or the Assured Surname, as the case may be.
In the case where the estate
under paragraph one is placed. Let the officer of the estate office
inform the redeemer of the immediate placement of the property. The
redeemer does not have to comply with Section 333,
paragraph three.
Section 493. In the
sale of the contract, the buyer agrees not to sell the property to the seller. If the
buyer disposes of the property is violated. It is
liable to the seller for any damages that occur.
Section 494. You
may not use the right to redeem the property after the expiration of the time
as mentioned below.
(1) if it
is real estate Ten years from the time of trading.
(2) if it
is movable Three years from the time of trading.
Section 495. If the
contract is too redundant. You are reduced to ten years and three
years by type of property.
Section 496. May
extend contract renewal. But the total redemption time. If the
time limit under Section 494 has expired, the time limit
under Section 494
The extension of the
redemption period under paragraph one must at least contain a signed document
of the redeemer. If the property is traded, it must be made in writing and
registered with the competent official. It is prohibited to extend an
extension of time into a fight against outsiders who are entitled to
compensation and in good faith. And have registered in good faith. Except
for the letter or evidence in the letter to be listed or registered to the
competent.
Section 497. The
right to redeem the property. But this is not the case.
(1) the
original seller or descendant of the original seller;
(2) the
transferee;
(3) Persons
in the contract who are specifically permitted to be redeemed.
Section 498. The
right to redeem the property. It is only applicable to these individuals.
(1) the
original purchaser or descendant of the original purchaser; or
(2) Asset
transferee Or the transfer of rights over the property. In
this article, if movable property will be exercised only when the transferee
knows at the time of transfer. The property falls into the force of
redemption.
Section 499
surname if it is not determined how much. You redeem at the sale price.
If it appears at the time of
redemption that the surname or sale price is set higher than the actual sale
price over the rate of fifteen per cent per year. Reimbursement
based on the actual sale price includes a return of fifteen percent per annum.
Section 500. The
sale fee which the buyer has left. The redeemer must be used by the buyer
along with the surname.
The cost of redeeming property. Redeemer
Section 501 Redeemable
Property You must return it as it was at the time of redemption. But if
the property is destroyed or tarnished by the fault of the buyer. You
will have to pay for the damage.
Section 502 of the redeemed
property. You will be reimbursed by the Redeemer without any rights
whatsoever from the original purchaser or the heirs or transferees of the
original purchaser, prior to the redemption.
If you rent a property that is
in the process of sale, the registration of rent to the competent official. If the
lease is not made to damage the seller. How much time is left to rent. It is
just complete.
But not more than one year
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1265/2559.
Document 4. Defendant
sold land dispute. The defendant will enter into a contract of sale from July
26, 2012 to January 26, 2013 under the existing agreement with interest. The
memorandum refers to the original sale agreement that the mother's death before
the mother. If it is agreed to sell land dispute with the new building,
it is not necessary to mention the original sale agreement. The
plaintiff also agreed to pay the same amount of interest under the original
sale agreement to the defendant by January 26, 2013, so it can be held that the
defendant extended the redemption period to the plaintiff with evidence in
writing the defendant, Section 496, paragraph two.
The mother, the plaintiff, the
seller and the defendant, the buyer agrees to pay interest at 12,000 baht per
month, so it is the price of sardine or sale price is higher than the actual
sale price of 18 percent per year when the price of sardines or the sale price
is set higher.
The actual sale price exceeds 15 percent per year, it is prohibited under
Section 499 paragraph two, which is redeemable according to the actual sale
price. Bear
15 percent per year for the Redemption price exceeding the legal limit is a
legal matter concerning the public order. Even the petitioner does not
appeal. The
Supreme Court has put forward a diagnosis.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
120/2559.
According to the sales contract of
the land registered with the competent official stated that the defendant sold
only land not related to the building number 252, which must be translated as
excluding the home without the house number. Therefore, the sale of land only.
The plaintiff is claiming that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to sell
the land with two houses is 252 house with no home number 1, but the competent
official said that registered the sale of two houses can not because it must be
priced. only the sale of land The plaintiff and the defendant has entered into
two additional house purchase agreements as agreed in the trading agreement.
The sale contract is a type of contract must have the provisions of the trade
as well, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 456 paragraph one stipulates
that the sale of real estate must be made in writing and registered with the
competent. Otherwise void When the sale of both houses is not registered with
the competent authority, it is void. In addition, the land sale agreement. And
contracts Doing the same thing clearly shows that the parties wish to avoid the
fee. It is an act that is contrary to public order and good morals. So it is
void in accordance with Section 150, so the plaintiff can not claim that the
two houses are owned by the plaintiff's main share. The plaintiff has no
ownership in the two houses. The parties did not agree to sell the house number
252 with the house is still owned by the defendant without falling into the
land. And the case is not required by Section 1310 because this case is not the
defendant planted house number 252 in the land of the plaintiff. Even after the
sale of the defendant will be added to the house after it. When the plaintiff
does not wish the defendant to stay in the land of the plaintiff anymore. The
defendant had to dismantle the house after the plaintiff's land. The house has
no numbers. At the contract of sale land without house number at home is still
under construction. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to build the house in
the land sold by the plaintiff did not prohibit. The defendant, the builder,
will understand that he has the right to build up until the completion of the
contract by the sale that he has the right to redeem the land within the
contract. No house number of the defendant's house is built in the property of
others in good faith. But when the sale agreement, the defendant does not
redeem within the deadline. Land that is sold to the plaintiff is strictly
prohibited. There are no laws to apply directly. The law is very close to the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 4, paragraph two of the Civil and Commercial
Code, Section 1310, paragraph one, the plaintiff is the owner of the land. But
the cost of land is only increased because the building to the defendant. And
the plaintiff allowed the defendant to build a house in the plaintiff's land
without restraint, the plaintiff's negligence in the building of the
defendant's house. The plaintiff can not refuse to accept it. And the land value
added to the defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
11102/2558.
This case the Court of First
Instance listened to the fact. Defendant registered the sale of land and
buildings to the plaintiff 50,000 baht, and the defendant's ruling that the
right to redeem the sale did not like because before the payment of the sack to
the property to the defendant never met the plaintiff to repay the debt.
Ownership of land and buildings belong to the plaintiff. And the judge to expel
the defendant and his family off the land and buildings sold. With the
defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff. Defendant to appeal unilaterally by
the plaintiff does not solve the appeal. The fact is that it is terminated by
the Court of First Instance. The defendant entered into a contract of sale of
land and buildings to the plaintiff at a price of 50,000 baht, so it is
considered that the amount of the dispute at the appeal in the original case
and the counterclaim was only 50,000 baht at the Appeal Court set the appeal
fee of 51,000 baht by the defendant. The cost of placing 1,000 baht is included
in the appeal fee is not correct. Appeal of the defendant must not allow the
couple to appeal in fact. According to Civil Code Section 224, the defendant
appealed that the defendant exercised his right to sell the property by the
defendant before the money is placed at the property. The defendant found the
plaintiff and the plaintiff sued the plaintiff. Appeal of the defendant is a
dispute in the hearing of the evidence of the court. It appeals to the factual
issue, which is forbidden to appeal. Appeal of the defendant is not the same as
the Civil Code. Section 242 (1) The problem of the plaintiff's petition is not
raised by the defendant in the court of Appeal. Section 249, paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8749/2558.
Before the defendant sued the
plaintiff that the plaintiff sold the land dispute to the defendant at a price
of 8,500,000 baht is due within a year, the plaintiff received a full payment.
The plaintiff did not redeem within the deadline and not leave the land sold.
Asked to evict and call the lack of benefits. Plaintiff to fight that the
defendant did not pay the full amount of the sale of 1,500,000 baht, the court
ruled that the plaintiff received the full amount of deposit as stated in the
sale agreement. Judge to expel the plaintiff and pay damages. The case is
finally over The plaintiff sued the plaintiff sued the plaintiff to sell the
land dispute to the defendant at a price of 8,500,000 baht to be repaid within
a year, the defendant paid the sale of the plaintiff to 7,000,000 baht, while
the remaining 1,500,000 baht still not paid to the defendant to pay the rest.
This is the court case in the case before the final judgment on the case that
the defendant to pay the sale to the plaintiff in full. Did not break the
contract with the plaintiff. The plaintiff's petition is under the subject of
prohibiting the reconsideration of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 144
can not determine the petition of the plaintiff. The problem is the legal problem
of public order. Although the defendant in this case will not raise the issue
of repeated reconsideration. The Supreme Court has the power to raise its own
judgment under Section 142 (5)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
495/2558.
The land and house disputes. The dead
bought and built after the second and the second defendant married. The death
penalty must be divided between husband and wife before death. The defendant's
second half as soon as death. The second half of the estate is the property of
the land and the property belonging to the defendant, not a property as
inheritance. As a manager of the inheritance, it is not authorized to register
the inheritance and registered the sale to the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff is
claiming good faith and compensation. But it does not appear that the defendant
2 conspire with or negligently serious negligence, defendant 2 will be
protected and have the right to land and their disputes. The registration of
the sale is not binding on the defendant, the second part of the estate and
property dispute, which is the inheritance will fall to the heirs, the
defendant is a second and a third part equally the land registration and land
dispute is transferred. The sole and the sale to the plaintiff. It is an act in
the power of the management of the inheritance if the 1st defendant as the heir
apparent. It was not right and it was damaged. The plaintiff has the right to
sue the plaintiff for the purchase of land and houses on the property of the
estate, without appearing that the plaintiff dishonest. I like and bound the
defendant to the first and second paragraph of Section 1724 of the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 1724, paragraph one, when the sale of land and houses
in the estate, like and without redeeming the sale. The ownership of the land
and the house is part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of the land
and the dispute with the defendant, with two equal parts, the second defendant
prevented the plaintiff, who owns the property, to use the property dispute. It
is a violation of the plaintiff, the defendant, 1 to 3 to 5, which resides in
the land and the dispute disrupted the plaintiff's use of property dispute. It
is a violation of the plaintiff as well.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
19759/2557.
Disputed land is land with evidence
of title deed. Act of sale between the defendant 1 and 2 to register with the
competent. The fact is that. Before the registration of the defendant's 2
defendants to see the land dispute is found that the defendant's land 2 to see
the land dispute several times, and asked the villagers near the land dispute
has been confirmed that the land dispute is the defendant. 1 on the day of
registration of the defendant. The land official said that the defendant can do
a lawful sale of land dispute to the defendant when the two defendants sold the
first defendant to go to the defendant 2 and get money from the defendant, the
second defendant must be the second defendant. Outside of the registration of
the purchase of land disputes from the defendant in good faith in the case with
the exception of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1300 of the defendant.
The transfer of more than one defendant, the transferor may not act to revoke
the sale of Defendant 1 to 2.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
18460/2557.
The expiration of the redeeming
period for the sale of the property is not required to be made in writing and
registered with the competent official. Only at least must have a signed letter
of the redeemer. It will be enforced. Not to bring the book or evidence into
the register or to notify the competent. The parties can not extend the
extension of time to fight the outsider who has the right to be paid in good
faith and has been registered in good faith only in accordance with Section
496, paragraph two. Rendering time in the request for renewal. The defendant,
the recipient's signature. Even not registered or registered with the competent
official is bound to the defendant, the first defendant, although not signed.
But the defendant's second consent in the defendant's case, one can hold that
the defendant 2 defendant 1, or allow the defendant to defend himself to
represent the defendant in the second agreement and make the book. The
redemption time for the plaintiff. The signature of the defendant is acting as
a representative of the second defendant, who is a redeemer. The expiry date of
the ransom is binding on the two defendants. When the two defendants failed to
comply with the agreement by the property purchased for sale before the
maturity date, the plaintiff was damaged. Must be jointly liable to the
plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
16134/2557.
Even the plaintiff and the defendant
is a husband by law. And the land dispute is the sins of the plaintiff and the
defendant, but the defendant, the first defendant informed the defendant that
the land dispute and the landlord that the defendant separated one with the
plaintiff. The plaintiff can not be signed to give consent. The claim that the land
dispute is a defendant to the plaintiff's testimony to answer the defendant's
claim that the defendant was separated from the defendant in 2010 since the
registration of the defendant after the land. Dispute the defendant to do the
act alone. The plaintiff has never given consent to cause the defendant to
believe in good faith that can do legal action. It is not considered that the
defendant is careless in any way. When the defendant made a sale with the
defendant in good faith in the price of 265,000 baht, when the defendant can
not be redeemed, the price is increased to 300,000 baht is considered a
reasonable price, because the plaintiff claimed in the request. If the land and
buildings are returned to the plaintiff did not use the price of 230,672 baht
to the plaintiff, so that the defendant to buy a good faith and compensation.
When the defendant 2 land and buildings for sale to the two defendants, it is
considered that the two defendants are protected under Section 1480, the first
paragraph at the end of the plaintiff can not sue for legal action. The
plaintiff sued the lawsuit. When the plaintiff has no right to sue the lawsuit
and the defendant is liable to the plaintiff. But when the plaintiff and the
defendant is still married, the case can not share the surname or to pay the
price instead of the plaintiff's request.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
16097/2557.
On July 1, 2010, the sale date. Both
plaintiffs tried to contact the defendant but could not contact. It is
considered a deliberate refusal to refuse acceptance of redemption or not
accept the debt. Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to put property under
Section 331, when the plaintiffs placed the sack property to the Chonburi
Provincial Court, Pattaya branch with a cashier's check dated July 1, 2010 paid
office. The lawsuit amounting to 10,000,000 baht, which is still in the
redemption period. In addition, the plaintiff has also been notified as
evidence that July 1, 2010 plaintiff brought money to redeem the land under the
sale agreement, which is due. But the defendant did not come to the appointment
and could not contact. According to the daily report, the evidence. Notice of
evidence at 17.15 clock, the time the government closed. As an indication that
the plaintiffs both acted on the advice of the enforcement officer and on July
2, 2010, the two plaintiff brought the cashier check to pay to the Chonburi
Provincial Justice Office to put the property to the officer. Place the
property at the enforcement office with a report of the officer as evidence. It
is clear that the plaintiffs both have a sack. Ready to pay to the defendant
under the sale agreement on the due date. The circumstances are that the
plaintiffs both sellers are ready to redeem within the deadline. The cashier
check will be placed at the office or placed and withdrawn. It is not the case
that the plaintiff did not have the right to redemption. Placing a property is
only evidence that the seller has a redemption to redeem the property sold to
the buyer under Section 492, paragraph one, states that "In the case of
redeeming assets sold within the time. Or if the redeemer has placed the sack
property in the property office within the redeem period by waiving the right
to withdraw the property. In case of placing the property does not force the
plaintiff to pay the dues to pay the court fees, which will be used for the
defendant, the buyer, with the surname, the plaintiff placed the cashier check
amount of 10,000,000 baht, as specified in the surname. Sale contract It is the
right to redeem property sold by the likes.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
12250/2557.
The plaintiff together with the
defendant married in Australia. And invest in the vineyard. Later, the
defendant moved back to Thailand. I have not divorced with the plaintiff.
Compensation paid by the Australian Government to the plaintiff and defendant
in the case of abandonment of the vineyard. The money acquired during the
marriage is a sinus. The plaintiff sent compensation to the defendant. Then the
defendant brought the money to buy property dispute. Even with the
registration, the defendant is the sole proprietor. Dispute is still the
property between the plaintiff and the defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff
filed for divorce, the defendant divided the Property and asked to use the
authority to govern children at the Juvenile and Family Court in Khon Kaen. The
case is being considered by the Juvenile and Family Court of Khon Kaen
Province. The defendant registered the sale of the property to the Police
Colonel is not a contract in the normal way. Although the lawsuit is still
under dispute and is under consideration by the Khon Kaen Provincial Youth
Court, the plaintiff (the plaintiff in this case) is the creditor who has the
power to sue the defendant. The composition of the fraudulent creditors under
Section 350 of the defendant's actions is a fault cheating creditor. Dispute is
a Marital Property between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff together
with the defendant is the owner of the property dispute. The defendant brought
the property into the police registration for sale to the police by the
plaintiff and the plaintiff did not know the permission of the plaintiff
before. And do not redeem within this deadline. The action of the defendant is
to obstruct the property dispute to his or her third party fraud. It is
misleading under Section 352 of the first paragraph, as well. The offense of
the defendant. The act is a one-sided offense against several laws.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10513/2557.
The wife contracted the sale of
disputes to the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff, the spouse. Act
of Sale Disputes Dispute Dispute Section 1476 (1) The plaintiff has the power
to sue the court to revoke the act of sale under Section 1480 paragraph one,
even if the application of the plaintiff only request the defendant to
register. The name of the plaintiff is the owner of the title in the dispute. I
did not request the revocation of the act of sale. It is the plaintiff's case
to pursue the plaintiff's property. Equivalent to the revocation of legal acts
of sale as well. And the revocation of the act of the sale of such a need to
revoke all the law will only withdraw the plaintiff's part. But when the
plaintiff sought only the plaintiff's part. The court can not revoke all of it
because it will be judged over or beyond the appearance of the indictment.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7031/2557.
The land dispute is a property that
has been acquired while the plaintiff is a lawful wife. It is a sin that the
husband or wife must manage together or manage with the consent of the other
party. When the sale of land under Section 1476 (1), but it appears that the
plaintiff's signature as a consent to sell the act. I do not do it alone. The
law is not complete. This will result in the spouse refusing consent to request
the court to revoke it. Except for juristic acts that outsiders have done in
good faith and pay compensation under Section 1480 paragraph one, but the law
does not stipulate that the act is void or void. So long as the contract of
sale of land has not been revoked. The outsider who is the contractor shall
have the right to complete the land.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5482/2557.
The plaintiff is the creditor of the
defendant in the Civil Court, red number of the .1062/2550 of the Civil Court,
the defendant registered the sale of land title deed No. 121938 Don Chang
District, Khon Kaen. Khon Kaen The defendant to the defendant later agreed with
the defendant that the defendant sold the land and the money was given to the
surname is a surname, so the ownership of the land transferred back to the
defendant before the sale to the day. same The money that was given to the
defendant as follows: the action of the defendant is an offense, but the sale
of land to the r. To be released from forced repayment. Even after the transfer
of ownership of the land back to the defendant before transferring to the sale
and then donate the money to Sattahip to the defendant whether the defendant
received a difference of land sales or not. It is only for the sale of land by
agreement. Do not make the action of the defendant is a new offense, but
anyhow. The action of the defendant is a single offense.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
19332/2013.
The plaintiff exercised the right to
redeem the land from the defendant on August 4, 2011, which is the date of
redemption of land sold. The money paid to the defendant to the defendant at
home. The defendant claims that the time has expired. The action of the
plaintiff is considered to be the right to redeem the land sold to the
defendant within the time specified in the sale agreement under Section 492,
Section 498, then the defendant must be redeemed. Even the plaintiff used the
right to redeem the land at 18 o'clock, past the official time. You can not
register the redemption of land on that date. But the redemption of the sale.
The law does not provide for the completion of the redemption period. When the
plaintiff has the right to redeem the property to the defendant within the
redemption period under the sale agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff can be
used between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff has the right to
redeem the land.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10834/2556.
The plaintiff and the defendant is
intended to be involved in the loan between A. and the defendant, with the
plaintiff as a guarantor. And make the land dispute as a debt guarantee. The
intention is not bound by the sale agreement. Although the intention to deceive
by the other party in the act of camouflage as provided in the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 155, paragraph two, the parties must express their
intent to do the act of two acts. Act one to appear out openly. The parties do
not wish to have any legal effect. The other act is an act that is not
disclosed as the act was camouflaged. The parties wish to have the act of
camouflage concealed between them. Even the parties to the legal act camouflage
must be only one pair. But this case, the plaintiff is the husband of the
borrower and also a guarantor in the loan agreement. The plaintiff wants to
spend money. The plaintiff has an interest in the loan. The plaintiff and the
act of doing so has a mutual benefit. And it can be considered as the same
party even though the parties in the act of sale is a legal act between the
plaintiff and the defendant. The act of borrowing a legal transaction between
the defendant and the two parties that it is legal acts as a partner. It is a
legal act to disguise the loan. It is void under Section 155 paragraph one must
be under the loan agreement under Section 155 paragraph two, the defendant also
has the right to seize the land dispute as insurance. When the facts still do
not sound clear that the repayment under the loan agreement is complete or not.
The plaintiff has no power to file for a defendant to redeem the sale with the
defendant to return the land dispute. And when the sale of land dispute with
the building is void. The Supreme Court likes to judge the delinquent.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10256/2056.
The plaintiff sued the defendant
entered into a land dispute with the plaintiff. Without redemption within the
deadline. Plaintiff to the defendant in the land dispute later. After the
plaintiff notified the defendant to go away, but the defendant ignored.
Defendant and counterclaim The defendant entered into a land sale agreement
with the defendant did not know the plaintiff and did not intend to sell the
land to the plaintiff. The sale is done by cheating to the defendant. All
transactions are null and void. The plaintiff is not the owner of land in
accordance with the law. The case is a dispute that the defendant sold the
plots of land to the plaintiff disputes or not. The issue is that the sale is
done fraudulently against the defendant. The sale will be void all. The
defendant did not say. Who is cheating and how are the defendants scammed? The
sale is void. The defendant's testimony is an unambiguous statement. And do not
cause a dispute that the sale is a fraudulent act against the defendant? The
fact is that the sale between the plaintiff and the defendant does not cheat
the defendant. The sale is a legal act. When the defendant is in dispute land
without a right, it must be a violation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the
right to evict the defendant and the detachment from the land disputes.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1814/2013.
The plaintiff sued for the revocation
of registration of the transfer of real estate is a disadvantage to the person
in the position to register their rights before. Court of Appeal Do you know
the fact that the defendant sold 2. The plaintiff is a buyer of land dispute
from the defendant and has occupied the first benefit to the plaintiff, the
creditor of the defendant 1 unfavorable, even if the defendant will pay
compensation is a common fraud. The plaintiff has the right to sue for the sale
of the defendant between the two defendants under Section 237 does not
constitute a non-offense. Exceeding the request of the defendant, the petition
2, because the plaintiff's complaint described the facts about the complete
evasion of fraud. The only difference is the revocation of the registration of
transfer of immovable property to persons who are in the position to register
their own. The court will adjust the script to match the narrative, the
lawsuit, and the facts of the case.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
133/2556.
The contract does not make the
seller is entitled to the property directly, so the seller must take into
account the loss of property to set high selling prices. However, the sale
agreement is entitled to receive the redemption by redemption. There is a
reason why sellers will set the selling price for redemption right at a price
lower than the value of the property as needed money and not be burdened with
the need to spend large amounts of redemption over so necessary. The sale
agreement is agreed to be lower than the real value and can not be redeemed. It
would have resulted in the plaintiff to receive the property in the asset value
higher than the amount that the plaintiff paid to the seller. Article 40 (1) to
(7) as provided for in the provisions of Article 40 (8), together with Section
39, which is different from the income of a person. Selling money received from
the buyer under the sale agreement. In addition, if the plaintiff is the
purchaser of the purchase price is high or equal to the actual value. The
plaintiff may prove the facts about this price. To be deducted as expenses
under the Royal Decree. (E) the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b); This is a
great way to make money online. (27) The sale of stolen property. The sale of
85% and Section 8, paragraph two, stipulates that unless the person having
income from the business as specified in the first paragraph presents evidence
to the assessment officer and proves that the expenses are higher than that.
Section 65 bis ... and Section 65 ter ... of the Revenue Code shall apply
mutatis mutandis. To apply mutatis mutandis. However, if the evidence proves
that it is legally deductible expenses less than the rate prescribed above. It
is assumed that the cost is just as proof. The plaintiff has no proof. Section
8 (27) has the effect that the plaintiff has earned only fifteen percent of its
profits after deducting expenses, which is in line with the rate of return on
sale. According to Section 499 paragraph two, the buyer is entitled to a surname,
the actual price of the sale, including the benefit of 15% per year, so that
the plaintiff to buy. Land and the seller is not redeemed within the contract
period, the plaintiff has the money to assess under Section 40 (8) in that tax
year, and the plaintiff deducted the expenses under the Royal Decree (No. 11)
does not conflict or contradict the provisions of Civil and Commercial Code But
it does not overlap. Since the sale price, which was used to calculate the
withholding tax from the seller's income, will be deducted as the expense for
calculating the income tax of the purchaser.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
15794/2555.
Defendant 1 scam scam to the
plaintiff to sell land. The act of the plaintiff's intentions in the contract
is void in accordance with Section 159 paragraph one, when the plaintiff sued
the two defendants as a result of this action to clear the void. The land
transaction law between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is invalidated at the
beginning and the party back to the original. The meaning of the right to
redeem the property that the defendant has a second defendant transferred back
to the plaintiff as a result of the law. This right is the result of the sale
of the land, the two plots of land being debt. The plaintiff is the assignee of
the property under Section 497 (2) The second defendant must be redeemed when
the plaintiff sued the surname for redemption, but the defendant does not
accept the plaintiff and the plaintiff. To put money at the office before the end
of the redemption without waiving the right to withdraw the property that the
defendant 2 refused to accept the redemption of the sale is not. The plaintiff
would like to request the defendant to register the land transfer 2 defendant
to the plaintiff to buy back.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5801/2552.
Defendant sold the land under the
certificate to the plaintiff and parents and not registered with the competent
officer because the defendant stated that. Money will come to repurchase later.
The contract is signed with the delivery of the certificate and the land.
Occupied If there is money to buy it back later, it looks like a redemption.
The sale agreement under Section 491, when not registered with the competent
official, would be void under Section 456 paragraph one problem that the act of
selling the wrongdoing is void or not. It is a problem of law of public order.
The Supreme Court has the power to raise the judgment under Section 142 (5) of
the Civil Code, Section 246 and 247.
The land and the possession of the
land dispute is the possession of the defendant, even after the death of the
land and the land dispute to the plaintiff. The land dispute of the plaintiff
must be considered as possession of land dispute. Defendant until the notice
changed the nature of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1381, or until the
defendant is willing to waive the possession of the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 1377 and 1379 that the plaintiff testified. The plaintiff to the
defendant to transfer the name of the defendant to the plaintiff's name 3
times, but the defendant did not consent. It can not be regarded as a change of
the nature of the provisions of Section 1381 above, but it is a support that
the defendant did not intend to waive the possession of Section 1377 and 1379,
the plaintiff has not been entitled to possession of land disputes. Dispute
land is only a certificate. The defendant has the right to change the land
title deed under the Land Code.
When it appears that the land
dispute has changed from a certificate of deeds. Land then the defendant will
have ownership of the land disputes. The plaintiff will be owned by the owner
only. The fact is that after the dispute land is a land title deed and
plaintiff. Notice to change the nature of the provisions of Section 1381 of the
Civil and Commercial Code. However, when the plaintiff sued the plaintiff still
occupy the land dispute less than 10 years, so it is not occupied by the
occupation of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1382.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4698/2551.
C. With the three defendants
plaintiff loan amount of 2,000,000 baht land and house dispute as insurance By
the three defendants agree to make a sale agreement as the plaintiff's wish to
do. Payment transaction The redemption fee is 3,500,000 Baht and the interest
is charged with the advance interest of 300,000 Baht when the law does not
provide the act of selling the interest. The plaintiff himself testified that
c. Contact for the plaintiff loan. So that sounds like a promissory note. And
the disputed house is insured. The law relating to loan law is applicable to
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 155 as a result of the land and house
dispute is still owned by the three defendants. The plaintiff has no right to
sue the three defendants.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2086 - 2087/2550.
The land sale agreement that
the plaintiff made the buyer to do with the defendant, the seller did not
determine the cost of the purchase. The defendant shall have the right to
redeem the land sold by the sale price under Section 499 paragraph one if the
defendant has a redemption of land sold within the contract period. But the
plaintiff does not consent to redeem. The defendant shall have the right to
redeem the land by selling the proceeds to the estate to the Bureau. Placing
the property within the redeem period by waiving the right to withdraw the
property has been placed. This case can be considered that the land sold to the
defendant since the time. The defendant has placed a sloop under Section 492,
first paragraph.
Memorandum of agreement that
the plaintiff made with the defendant as evidence that the plaintiff consented
to the defendant ransom. Land sold after the contract expires. The memorandum
is an extension of the ransom agreement. Even if not registered with the land
official, it is binding on the plaintiff to redeem. Signed in the contract
under Section 496 of the extension of the redemption period is not scheduled.
Must be under Section 494, the defendant shall have the right to redeem the
land within 10 years from the date of the contract. When the defendant sued the
plaintiff for redeeming the land from the plaintiff has not passed 10 years
from the date of the contract sale. The defendant is entitled to redeem the
land sold by the plaintiff.
When the defendant took
possession of land in the sale after the sale agreement. The plaintiff and the
plaintiff and the plaintiff signed a contract to extend the redeeming land to
the defendant, the defendant remained in the land sold after the maturity of
the contract. So it is not against the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2498/2550.
According to the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 491 when the defendant sold the land dispute to the
plaintiff. Ownership of land dispute will fall to the plaintiff. The defendant
in a house built in the plaintiff's land disputes, thus violating the defendant
shall have no right to live in disputed land anymore. The plaintiff has the
power to evict the defendant. If the defendant redeemed within the time limit,
then the plaintiff would not redeem it, the defendant will sue. Requesting the
plaintiff to comply with the contract. Not related to the power of the
plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5873/2550.
Section 492, the redeemer will
have the ownership of the property sold only when the payment of wages or
sacked property, so even if the court of first instance is the final judgment,
the second defendant to be registered to redeem the sale of land dispute.
Mortgage and take a sack as requested by the petitioner. But when the
petitioner has not paid for the sack or put a sunday. The ownership is not
vested in the claimant in accordance with the law. Dispute land is also owned
by the defendant, the two petitioners are not entitled to request release of
land disputes.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7795/2549.
The contract between the
plaintiff and the third defendant has the message "The seller agrees to
sell the deposit ... The price of 200,000 baht is 2 years from the date of the
contract until April 1, 2000 without 200,000 baht returned to the buyer. The
seller allowed the land of 15 acres under the contract to the purchaser on
April 1, 2000. "The only meaning is that the defendant will allow land
ownership to fall to the plaintiffs only if the defendant. Non-payment of 200,000
baht to the plaintiff at both times. It is not the defendant agreed to let
ownership of the plaintiff fall to the two immediately, with the agreement that
the defendant may redeem the land later. Must be with the nature of the sale
agreement under Section 491, but the defendant has received a plaintiff from
the two and agree to pay back. It is a loan. And the contract will be used as
evidence of the loan. Both plaintiffs are mentioned in the complaint that the
defendant sold the land to both plaintiffs. It is a brief description of the
facts that appear in the contract. The plaintiff attached to the complaint
only. It is the duty of the court to adjudicate the facts that the law
requires. Especially the plaintiff did not file a lawsuit against the land. I
asked the defendant to pay a refund.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
12487/2547.
The land of the defendant and
the land of the mother and grandmother's defendants are located in the same
neighborhood as the big plots. The defendant knew that the defendant's
grandparents sold the land dispute, which is a part of land plots and land that
the defendant occupied with the plaintiff. But the defendant would continue to
eat in the land dispute later. After the defendant informed that the defendant
did not redeem the ownership of the land dispute, so it belongs to the
plaintiff. The defendant is still eating in the land dispute throughout. The
defendant must occupy the land dispute instead of the plaintiff. As long as the
defendant did not intend to change the covenant by notifying the plaintiff that
the defendant did not intend to hold land dispute over the plaintiff anymore.
As provided in Section 1381, the land cover of the defendant's dispute will
remain the same.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1522/2546.
The plaintiff is the owner of
the land, but the title holder of the title instead of the defendant to deceive
the plaintiff and plaintiff until the plaintiff and the plaintiff signed a
contract to transfer the ownership of the defendant to make a legal void. The plaintiff
and the defendant, but the defendant, who is a third party to buy land disputes
from the defendant in good faith and compensation. The plaintiff later
requested to redeem the land from the second defendant, while the defendant did
not have a date to redeem the second defendant by the defendant, and the second
defendant did not allow the plaintiff to redeem. The plaintiff can not take the
plaintiff to the plaintiff and make the act void the plaintiff has told the
defendant to clear up and fight the second defendant, who is a third party who
acts in good faith and obtained land disputes with compensation before it. To
clear the void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 160, Section 1329.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2711/2544.
Plaintiffs own land disputes. Plaintiff's
mother loan several defendants. The plaintiff presented the land title to the
defendant mother as insurance. Later, the defendant's mother reported that the
plaintiff owed the principal and interest. The plaintiff and the defendant
entered into a land dispute and the same day. The plaintiff and the defendant
made a contract of sale of land disputes at the mother's house, the defendant
at 180,410 baht, the intention of the plaintiff to the defendant. I want to
sell land dispute. Plaintiff's defendant did not intend to be bound by the sale
of land dispute. The sale of land is a deliberate fraud between the plaintiff
and the defendant is a void under Section 155 paragraph one of the sale
contract that was camouflaged is also void. Because no registered with the
competent authority under Section 155 paragraph two and Section 152 when both
contracts are void, the plaintiff's contract must return to its original
position. The case must be enforced by the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff
must be refunded to the defendant. And the defendant must return the land to
the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1370/2544.
The seller has redeemed the land disputes from
the buyer within the terms of the sale contract. Even if no redemption is
registered, it is only a partial return of the property in disputed land. But
there is a force to bear. It has not been redeemed yet. The land is sold
immediately to the seller. It has the force between the parties. The seller's
estate is entitled to follow up and claim the buyer to redeem the sale of land
at any time in accordance with Section 1336.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4729/2543.
The defendant entered into a
land sale agreement with the father of the plaintiff while still within the
redemption period under the sale agreement. The defendant entered into a
contract with the plaintiff to sell the land and then the defendant entered
into a contract with Ph.D. that he did not wish to redeem and waive the right
to redeem the following: The agreement between the defendant and the defendant
is considered a sale of land to the defendant. Contract It is not a legitimate
contract. The defendant also has the right to redeem the sale within the
redemption period under the sale agreement and within the sale period. The
defendant shall have the right to land the contract to buy and sell to the
plaintiff, which the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 497 requires the
transferee the right to redeem it. When the defendant is in breach of contract
to buy land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the transferee, the right to
redeem the land.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
904/2542.
The plaintiff sold land disputes to the land.
There is a 1-year redemption period. From the day of sale registration. The
plaintiff has the right to redeem within a year, according to the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 491 one year, the plaintiff does not redeem property.
Ownership of the land dispute is the property of the plaintiff, the plaintiff
is the landlord instead of the land dispute. The buyer only to the plaintiff,
but the plaintiff to the embroidered in the land dispute as the plaintiff. And
prohibit outsiders The intention is to change the nature of the possession, not
because there is no notice to. A.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2838/2541.
The sale agreement was made on February 21,
1995, with a one-year maturity date of February 21, 1996, when the defendant
made a memorandum of understanding on February 21, 1996, indicating that the
plaintiff was willing to plaintiff's purchase of the land. The price 550,320
baht within 1 month is from February 21, 1996 to March 21, 1996. If this
deadline is no right and the plaintiff signed the defendant. I do not know what
to do. Although the memorandum of understanding will not contain any message
that the agreement to extend the redemption of the sale, but the agreement has
pledged to sell the property sold to the defendant to the plaintiff to the
plaintiff at a price of 550,320 baht. The redemption price is 544,000 baht, the
repurchase price is higher than the redemption price of only 6,320 baht, if the
defendant returned to the plaintiff within a month, then the defendant. A
special business tax rate is 3 percent Moreover, the defendant must also pay
personal income tax as well. This will cause the defendant to receive net
proceeds from the sale of the property is lower than the redemption price of
the sale. There is no reason for the defendant to pledge to sell the property
that is the ownership of the defendant returned to the plaintiff in accordance
with the circumstances that the plaintiff defendant made a memorandum showing
the intention of the parties that the defendant extended the period. Sales to
the plaintiff for another month, it is prohibited under the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 496, the memorandum is void. The plaintiff has no
right to sue the defendant to transfer the dispute under the agreement.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
291/2541.
The plaintiff's interest in the plaintiff. The
seller and the defendant, both the wife and son of the MP when the Civil Code
Section 499 of the Sattahip. The plaintiff agreed. Both the defendant and the
defendant paid interest during the term of the sale. It is a requirement. Both
the defendant and the defendant to pay the two plaintiffs themselves.
With the defendant 2 divorced,
and made a memorandum of agreement to raise the land and the dispute to the
defendant with whom they are children and also a minor. The contract is a
divorce between husband and wife under Section 1532 and a contract for the benefit
of the defendant 1 with the third party under Section 374 and the right of the
defendant to 1. Will occur when the intention is to take advantage of the
contract under Section 374, paragraph two, when it appears that the defendant.
1, with the intention to take advantage of the contract, the defendant with 1,
so they have no right to land and house disputes. The owner of the property can
transfer the land and house disputes to other people, so the plaintiff, the
buyer of land and house disputes. The owner of the property. The plaintiff
sued.
The plaintiff and the MP
intend to enter into a contract of sale by registered with the competent
official. And the act of selling the right model. Even the plaintiff will not
notify the land official that the sale has paid interest. It does not
invalidate the sale.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7725/2540.
The husband of the plaintiff
is entitled to occupy the land dispute. Miss. 3L. Dispute land to register the
sale to the defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff and The right to redeem the
sale within the specified. And the defendant has returned to Miss. 3 with the
sale agreement to the plaintiff and then the plaintiff and the plaintiff. The
joint possession of the land dispute until the death of the plaintiff's possession
of land throughout. The plaintiff is a custodian under Section 1378 and 1379
when the possession is due to the right to redeem the sale back from the
defendant, the buyer within. Even without a redeem, the sale is only for the
return of the land title. But between the plaintiff and the defendant together.
I have the same effect. The plaintiff has the right to sue the defendant to
register the sale of land dispute disputes to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2120/2540.
The lawsuit filed for redemption of the sale.
The plaintiff claimed. The redemption of the property within the contract of
sale, but the defendant will not be redeemed. A lawsuit against a property that
will result in the loss of any one party or the right to property in the case
of property with the property at the price of the sale is a lawsuit to remove
the suffering. Can not be calculated as money.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
407/2540.
The right to redeem the sale of the two
plaintiffs, the seller must show the intention to redeem the defendant, the
purchaser and the buyer must pay the purchase price of the redemption along
with the redemption price on the redemption day with the sale. Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 499 and Section 500 because it is the case that both
plaintiffs who are redeemed are obliged to pay compensation to the defendant,
so even the plaintiff. It is confirmed that both plaintiffs are ready to redeem
the land from the defendant, but it does not appear that the plaintiffs
presented the surname to the landlord, and recorded as evidence that the
plaintiffs have enough money. The defendant, the bank accountant, was contacted
by the defendant to receive money from the redemption of the land, but the
plaintiff. The two are told to wait for the capital to pay for the redemption
of the day that no one to the land dispute that the plaintiff did not have
enough money to buy enough to redeem the defendant can not hold that the two
plaintiffs. Redemption by the way
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3390/2538.
Defendant 1 and 2 sold the land and the
dispute to the third defendant to the land and home to the contract to sell it
to the plaintiff as follows: Section 497 to determine who to exercise the right
to redeem. And (2) that the transferee is entitled to redeem the property. When
the defendants 1 and 2 are wrong, the contract will be dealt with by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff is a transferee under the provisions of the law, the
third defendant is obliged to be redeemed, although not a contracting party. When
the third defendant does not accept redemption. The plaintiff then put money at
the office before the expiration of the redeeming property under the third
defendant, the defendant refused to accept the redemption of the sale.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1485/2538.
Both plaintiffs signed a land
sale agreement for the defendant, the first three years of the plaintiff's
agreement with the defendant before the time for the plaintiff to allow the
plaintiff to buy the original price at the end of the contract, then the
agreement. As a result, both plaintiffs have the right to redeem the property
repurchased. The redemption date is 3 years as stipulated in the sale
agreement. The extension of the redeeming period of prohibited property under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 496. The agreement is void, the
plaintiff has no right to sue to force the defendant to transfer the land under
the agreement.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3421/2538.
The defendant sold the land and the dispute to
the plaintiff. After the redemption date, the contract of renting a dispute
with the plaintiff. The defendant was in the land and the dispute later after
the redemption of the sale. It is a replacement for the plaintiff. I have no
custody. Although the defendant has a written notice to change the registration
of land to the sheriff is not considered to change the nature of the provisions
of Section 1381 because the defendant did not have a written notice to the
plaintiff. No intention to take ownership of the plaintiff instead. The
plaintiff was not occupied. Must not file a lawsuit within 1 year under Section
1375
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3372/2536.
The back of the contract of
sale of land, the judge determines that the plaintiff must sell the redemption
fee to pay. Office for sale within the deadline. If the defendant can not track
the buyer to redeem it. If the plaintiff turns out. The defendant has the right
to redeem the land in accordance with the time limit, but the defendant avoided
delaying the redemption of the plaintiff, so the need to comply with such
conditions.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
601/2535.
After the sale, the buyer is
deposited with. The seller has made a contract with the message that "B.
gave the money for the redemption of the building with 33,000 baht, the sale of
the building with the building" on the day of receiving money from. The MPs
and MPs have taken to the provincial land office to transfer land and house
disputes, but also can not transfer because. No money transfer fee It has been
agreed that before the new year 2-3. I will not be able to do that, but I will
not be able to do it. The agreement is not an extension of the sale. Due to the
completion of the sale and The right to redeem the sale before.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2018/2530.
According to the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 497. The person who will use the right to redeem the property must be
the original seller, heirs, former sellers, transferees, or the parties to the
contract, especially that the redeemer is to determine the right to redeem the
property. Specifically. The plaintiff is not a person who has the right to
redeem the land dispute as provided by law. Even if the plaintiff is the legal
wife of the defendant, the seller or not, the plaintiff will claim that the
dispute is a sins and request a ransom dispute.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2156/2530.
Defendant registered the sale of land disputes
with the husband of the plaintiff for one year, the defendant has redeemed the
sale. Even redemption is not registered. It is only the return of property in
the land is not complete. But between the plaintiff and the defendant
themselves. I have the same effect. The plaintiff's heirs are not entitled to
suing the defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2662/2530.
The agreement that the buyer agrees to sell
the property back to the seller when the property is sold out is the right of
the buyer. It is a promise to sell the property, which is mandatory. Not to extend
the redemption of property prohibited by the provisions of the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 496.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
132/2523.
Creditors will use the rights
of the debtor on behalf of the debtor by the lawsuit to redeem the property sold.
After the redemption period is not. Because the debtor has no right to redeem.
Before the redemption. The
plaintiff, the creditor, has a letter to the right to redeem the property
instead of the seller, the debtor. It is not possible that the person entitled
to the redemption of the property is entitled to redeem the sale. Because the
plaintiff is a creditor who uses the rights of the debtor to protect their
rights in debt only. Not a person who has the right to redeem According to the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 497
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2802/2522.
Originally, the plaintiff
intended to make a mortgage agreement. But when the defendant did not agree.
And make a sale agreement. The plaintiff agreed to this, the plaintiff is a
voluntary agreement to sell. It is not intentional. And not a legal agreement
to mortgage. Even the defendant will be charged interest on the purchase of
deposits, equivalent to the interest rate of 1 baht 75 satang per month. It is
too expensive for the interest rate. But when the benefits are combined with
the purchase price of the defendant, the plaintiff will become a surname, which
in the contract of sale. The parties will determine the need for benefits,
including the principal amount of any amount by the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 499, and the parties will agree to pay the debt. The principal
repayment of the plaintiff will have the effect of repayment of some of the
surname itself.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
627/2521.
The plaintiff has money, but
can not withdraw because it is not a public holiday, because the defendant is
not redeemed on the day after the plaintiff's pledge to exercise the right to
redeem within.
