Section 850 which is a compromise. The contract, which the parties settle the dispute either the existence or will be completed by the applicant is not the same.
Section 851 of the compromise agreement. If there is no evidence either in writing signed by the party liable. The signatures of the representatives of the parties is important. He claims that the court can not
Section 852 of the compromise agreement. I make a claim, each party agrees to surrender the settlement to end. And each party has the right as shown in the contract that was his.
Supreme Court in 4921/2552.
The legacy of Section 1612 waivers permit two types of intent expressly given in writing to the competent official. The compromise agreement is made in accordance with Section 1612 shall mean the director of the county or the sheriff or chief of district and includes a person who acts. So instead of the seven sons of The inheritance to give testimony and written records. Expressly stated that it does not apply to the inheritance of land in the District Administrative Officer. The Head of Government Land Office Suite. As for the Acting Chief Executive Officer. The sheriff has the authority. Administration Regulations Act 2534 Section 38 (10) are in effect at that time to authorize the head of a government based in District government instead. It is official legal tender. But to mention that his seven sons. Not obtain the heritage of this land and allow the defendant was the sole heir to his legacy is not a waiver under Section 1612 because of the legacy, provided, however, prohibited by Section 1613. I said, a compromise agreement to take effect. His seven sons to the defendant shall be bound by Section 850, 852 and 1750.
Supreme Court in 2675/2551.
Testimony of the defendant that the plaintiff did not bring 2 to 4 cases were filed within one year from the date of death, Sat. Four to terminate the plaintiff's case. Supreme Court to rule that the plaintiff in the four terminate the trustee. The defendants do not have to fight them. Continue to fight for the life of the contract. It is not raised like that, then by the Court. Supreme Court has not been diagnosed.
After I sign the divorce between the Sun, stating that the plaintiff in a home with land, building houses for the plaintiff, 2 to 4 sons and 3 is the compromise agreement is a contract to third parties by Section 850 and Section 374 of the first plaintiff as the party has the right to Sat debt repayment by transferring the disputed land to the right and three sons. Was caused by the compromise agreement was not provided by statute. Only to fall under the provisions of Section 193/30 age of 10 years from the date of the compromise agreement.
Complaint at 2 to 4 is a third party that will benefit from a contract between the plaintiff's claim of a third party MP has said the law does not prescribe a prescription. In particular, the age of 10 years under Section 193/30 and the rights of third parties will be held from the debtors that intention. It takes advantage of the agreement in accordance with Section 374 paragraph 2 through 4, when the plaintiff tendered to the debtor, the Sun takes advantage of the contract by the transfer of land and house. Their contract in early 2534 at 2 to 4, the plaintiff may claim the transfer of land and houses by the Sun from the time of the tender, which was filed on April 9, 2542 to no more than 10. year
2 to 4, the plaintiff tendered to the Sun, the receivable to a third party and may not modify or suspend the right of S 2 through 4 in the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 375 is Sat. no right to the disputed land to the plaintiff, defendant, 2 to 4 against the revocation of the transfer between S. ใhgodiesneha the defendant.
Supreme Court in 2675/2551.
After I sign the divorce. Stating that the house number 11 / 1 Tambon Bang Kaew, Muang Ang Thong Ang Thong province. Land, buildings and home to the plaintiff for 2 to 4 sons and 3 is the compromise agreement is a contract to third parties in accordance with Section 850 and Section 374 as a party plaintiff is entitled to. MP calls for debt repayment by transferring the disputed land to the right and three sons. Was caused by the compromise agreement was not provided by statute. Only to fall into force of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 of the age of 10 years from the date of the compromise agreement with the Sun on September 29, 2531 as filed on April 9, 2542 to more than 10 years of litigation. The first part of the plaintiff to terminate the plaintiff, at 2 to 4 is a third party who will benefit from a contract between the plaintiff and the Sun is the case for third party claims of any third party. The law does not prescribe a particular age must be 10 years of age, under Section 193/30 and the rights of third parties will be held from the debtors that intention. It takes advantage of the agreement in accordance with Section 374, paragraph two, on hearing the fact that the plaintiff's intent to Sat 2 to 4 shows the debtor to take advantage of the agreement to transfer land and homes. according Their contract in early 2534 at 2 to 4, the plaintiff may claim the transfer of land and houses by the Sun from the time of intent to sue, which is on the 9th of April in 2542 also. more than 10 years at 2 to 4, the plaintiff's case did not terminate the Sun, a receivable may not modify or suspend the rights of the plaintiff, at 2 to 4 in accordance with Section 375 after the Sat. no right to the land dispute.
Defendant to the plaintiff at 2 to 4, to revoke the transfer of the S. give By affection the defendant.
Supreme Court in 2569/2551.
R. companies to sell the disputed checks signed by the plaintiff by the endorsement. The plaintiff, who by law. When the bank refused to cash the check. Defendants who are ordered to pay, and Rama, who have endorsed a common liability to the plaintiff under Section 914 and Section 967 and Section 989 of the first paragraph shall be considered as a debtor to do so when the plaintiff. compromise agreement, which is regarded as one of the new debt the plaintiff would be entitled to claim payment for their companies, according to Rama, the compromise agreement. No right to call the company liable for the debt, according to Rama in one settlement. The plaintiff's right to claim against the defendant as a liability to the plaintiff in order to pay them. Debt settlement will put an end to the check. This is because the debt-claim in the case of the plaintiff in a settlement to end.
Supreme Court in 1010/2551.
The lawsuit is not prohibited by Section 148 of the pair Civil Procedure Code the two cases is the same party as the plaintiff, the plaintiff's case before a. This case is against the law as minor, but it's a.. The plaintiff sued the defendant in the lawsuit as a party under a compromise settlement, the parties are not the same. It is not a unique case.
Agreement to indemnify the defendant violated the sovereignty of the plaintiff by Deprived children to the plaintiff. No part of any party that wishes to terminate a criminal offense according to the land of the compromise agreement is enforceable under the law. The purpose is not expressly prohibited by law or against a flat. Hundreds, or good morals of the people will be null and void under Section 150.
Supreme Court to 298/2551.
Agreement that a defendant plead guilty to violations. Who was driving the car plaintiff that the car insurance they receive. To repair the damage to be in good condition as before. Even if a defendant is not liable for injuries and medical expenses. But there is no agreement on a waiver claim for damages other parts of the Lord. The defendant claims that the car has a much agreement there is no way to dispute that one exists. Or will be completed by the applicant is not the same. It is not a compromise agreement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 850.
Defendant driving a car accident to pick up the trade business to the defendant's actions violated the defendant's first two acts are in the employ of the defendant 2.
The plaintiff brings the scene to fix the car until the car is in original condition. Plaintiff's claims and issued orders for the car with the receipt, and debt. Paid to the insured vehicle accident already. The plaintiff has to pay for repairs to the garage. The plaintiff is the heir entitled to claim damages from both defendants.
Supreme Court in 8388/2550.
Agreement says. If the plaintiff receives the full amount specified. I do not doubt that the plaintiff claims, civil or criminal, or remove the doubt. This agreement and the defendant must be offered to directors of the defendant's previous The agreement would not dispute that it is completed. It is not the compromise agreement.
The court ruled that the District 9 is in effect the same compromise agreement. The plaintiff's right to bring an action for damages filed in violation of the defendant, the judge acquitted two defendants, two suspended, but disqualified the plaintiff to bring a case to sue under the compromise agreement (document refers Mon 9), even without any party. The appeal means that the document is not the compromise agreement Mon 9. The Court of Appeal agreed that the document represents a compromise agreement Mon 9. The abuse liability between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is still available at the District Court judge acquitted two defendants without prejudice to the right plaintiff to bring a case to sue under the compromise agreement did not like. The problem is that the compromise agreement, or the District 9 is about the power to bring an action against the plaintiff, the defendant filed a second lawsuit by the New Mon 9 documents referring or relating to the law and order. people Court of Appeals for the diagnosis itself.
Supreme Court in 6549/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant had the Labour Court against the defendants with the five to which an employee has violated the plaintiff's. The employer as a civil rights claim. The compromise agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant had a contract for the company. Compromise settlement in a civil case in which there is no agreement that the plaintiff's action is not attracted to. Criminal defendant. It's not exactly the "same offense" against the plaintiff's right to bring a criminal case shall not be extinguished by Civil Procedure Code Section 39 (2).
Supreme Court in 5387 - 5388/2550.
Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant a condition in which the claimant is the defendant intended to work. Completed by the plaintiff. Then deduct the cost of debt and debt issued in this case after case. Construction on the defendant or the plaintiff to pay the debt in full. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to be withdrawn. No one suggests that the plaintiffs agreed to settle the dispute or waiver of prosecution. Criminal defendant the right at all. It is not a criminal offense to bring a lawsuit to stop the Criminal Procedure Code Section 39 (2).
The agreement is one of the plaintiff to the defendant's waiver of repayment. The applicant is not willing to do. It is not a compromise agreement. Debt does not make the check was canceled. Then the new debt under the compromise agreement does not change a thing. This is the essence of debt is not a new debt will make the old debt. Extinguished it. When the defendant did not take money out of the four parties to the plaintiff. Debt and to issue a check for the money but the end result is bound to follow. Act offenses arising from the use of Section 7 in the case did not break.
Supreme Court in 4306/2550.
That a defendant domiciled in Bangkok. The plaintiff sued the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 common liability arising from an agent. If the information is relevant to the case. The plaintiff sued the defendant, a defendant domiciled in Bangkok and 2, which is domiciled in the District Court and the Court of First Instance by P.wi.p. Section 5.
The fact that two representatives of the defendants a duty to persuade the guests to do the coverage purchased, the defendant No. 1 and is responsible for insurance of the defendant that a well would be the guests, including the plaintiff to understand and believe that the defendant 2, say, or do they act within the scope of authority of the two defendants who are representing. Despite the fact that the second defendant to pay premiums in advance will be done outside the jurisdiction of the defendant is represented as a character, it is liable to the plaintiff, a third party who in good faith and in accordance with Section 822. Section 820 without regard to whether the defendant is given an advance payment of such premium or not.
The defendant does not have an organization that represents the premium in advance. And check made payable to the plaintiff to pay the premium does not comply with the instructions. Specified in the receipt of money temporarily, but a defendant is ordered to pay in advance or not. It is a matter between the defendant and a defendant with a second defendant did not raise this issue with a disclaimer.
Agreement that the plaintiff made against two defendants did not dispute that it is completed. But also that the plaintiff does not prosecute the defendant on the second when the accused 2, agreement on other full agreement is not a compromise agreement and the debt was suspended, defendant No. 1 has been committed. will be liable to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 1732/2550.
Defendant's agreement to pay restitution under the responsibility of the Ministry of the plaintiff but the plaintiff and the Ministry has entered into a compromise with the Ministry will be liable for any liability arising from contractual liability of the Ministry of damage. and the liability of the defendants, who bear A. The insurance settlement and an end to the compromise agreement is liable to the plaintiff under Section 850 and 852 g on the liability of the plaintiff is liable under the compromise agreement. Defendant as a guarantor is released from liability to the contractual obligations of the Ministry responsible for damage to the suspension under Section 698.
Supreme Court to 246/2550.
The plaintiff and the partnership with the University. The parties in the case of the compromise agreement and was sentenced by a court allowed a lawsuit to end the dispute that that dispute is not servitude. The suspension shall end. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 852 of the dispute is not the servitude of the land of the plaintiff but the plaintiff is no longer available. Limited access to land for the road in meters to the road, Bangna - Trad. Under the terms of the compromise agreement. Even if the plaintiff is more than 10 years of servitude is vested by statute in accordance with Section 1401.
Supreme Court in 1117/2550.
The second plaintiff, a letter to the bank manager accused Sat. Pak said the two branches of the plaintiff's liability for damages incurred by the plaintiff's account of the two alone. The managers do not have the severe punishment of Rama, the two do not doubt that the plaintiff and defendant, both civil and criminal. The second plaintiff is the only guarantee that no doubt civil and criminal claims for the defendants. The defendant did not enter into agreements with parties in the dispute between plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and will finish with the same grace. Into a compromise agreement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 850.
Supreme Court to 718/2550.
The hours drive from Bangkok to the province of Chai Nat, on the orders of May, a managing director at Sun and the employer to take May to negotiate to pay damages if the Sun was driving collided with. other people's cars during the duties of the Commissioner as to the compensation Por the compromise is based on Section 850, 852 for the breach of May, the company may be liable for Wed. damaged by the Section 77, 425, 427 to negotiate the restitution of May to benefit the working or protection, so it was not Por the protection of the employer. But according to the order of the employer, but the go ahead to negotiate compensation. The criminals use guns to shoot at, and died May not be the cause of criminal use of firearms, it did not occur. During the negotiations, or damages resulting from the negotiations. The reason is that normally would occur from the trip. It is not a direct result of the work. Or protect the interests of the employer. The employer or by order of the PM and Wed death, it does not matter because it works. Or protect the interests of the Company from May, the employer is not in danger, in accordance with Section 5 of the Compensation Act 2537.
Supreme Court in 8231/2549.
In the case before the plaintiff sued the defendant to pay child support under the agreement and pay a 11,000 baht, half a pension. The plaintiff is a company jointly owned by the pension The defendant then retirement. The plaintiff, the defendant entered into a compromise agreement that does not fill the request. The defendant agreed to pay 11,000 baht care to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had no doubt continue to admonish the case. Means that the plaintiff satisfied to trigger the care of the defendant to pay 11,000 baht without doubt be referred to the defendant to pay for care anymore, as the plaintiff filed a case asking the defendant to pay for care to be sued. repeatedly Even in the case before the Court referred to the care, based on the information memorandum. Because of the memorandum of the relationship between husband and wife of the plaintiff. The defendant as provided in Section 1461, paragraph two, because even in the case before the plaintiff can not claim a right to sue the plaintiff's memorandum to the defendant. Care already. Issue of the case to trial before the same issues and that is to call the care by the second paragraph of Section 1461 plaintiff filed this lawsuit is filed a case before the Civil Procedure Code Section 148. paragraph.
Supreme Court in 8141/2549.
Prior to the termination of the contract agreement between them. Dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant has had talks with many, many times before. The plaintiff's claim for an allowance calculated by the amount of the defendant. Higher than that of the plaintiff should receive a total payment of wage arrears and the location and the agreement to terminate the contract of employment clause 3 states that the plaintiff satisfied the terms of such records without a doubt a call anything else. longer regarded as the plaintiff waived the right to claim unpaid wages and money. Money where it can be included in the grant agreement by then. Termination of the contract agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is a compromise settlement agreement under Section 850.
Supreme Court in 6002/2549.
Although the defendant No. 1 and No. 3 agreed with the plaintiff states that it is a compromise agreement. The agreement says that a defendant is charged a premium by the insured does not apply to them. The plaintiff in the amount of USD 446,855.47 for the reimbursement of the amount of restoring the plaintiff. And repayment of debt, payable by check payable to the plaintiff and the first six installments due in the next day. The rest paid in the coming months, without the intent of the defendant shows the plaintiff to agree to a settlement that would have the grace to live with each other. The agreement is not a compromise agreement. The agency will hold an end to the debt under Section 850 and 852, the second defendant as a guarantor is not released from liability for debts contracted agents.
Supreme Court in 4948/2549.
The plaintiff and the Ministry of divorce by agreement the assets under the settlement, and the presence of an employee who has clearly stated that both parties consent to the application for registration of divorce. A husband and wife voluntarily and agree to divide the property. Including rubber plantations, property, filed Aug. 1, according to the plaintiff and that the Ministry intends to settle disputes about property, existing or to be held the next. Let's face it, with different parties are not permitted to compromise the compromise agreement under Section 850 on a compromise agreement regarding the property. As a result, the plaintiff's claims on the property extinguished. The plaintiff had the right as shown in the new settlement, in accordance with Section 852 only the plaintiff has no right to divide the property by filing a claim.
Supreme Court to 574/2549.
The court initially sentenced the defendant to pay plaintiff the two together. However, the two defendants do not settle. The plaintiff asked the court filing that the two defendants and the plaintiff sued the defendant in this case, both a criminal and it is. Compromise agreement. To suspend execution until the second defendant to comply with the compromise agreement. According to a statement of the plaintiff and the defendant advised the court that the two criminal defendants, provided that if a full repayment to the plaintiff. Plaintiff would not doubt the claim against the defendant No. 2 anymore, but the plaintiff and the defendant, the two have agreed that the defendant is a non-payment to the plaintiff or the payment is complete, then the plaintiff to consent to the defendant. 2 released from liability or not. The above statement is just another reason to postpone the meeting for another appointment to listen to the verdict. Only. There is no way that the plaintiff accused the two have agreed to settle the disputes existing between them and allow them to finish with the same period of the contract is not a compromise. The right to suspend enforcement of the plaintiff is not the end.
Supreme Court in 6639/2548.
Agreement for debt payment of damages to the defendant a lease agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been damaged so that the plaintiff or the defendant is a defendant in a breach of the lease. And allow them to pay damages to the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the twelfth installment 100,000 according to Article 4, such that if a defendant fails to pay the full amount of 100,000 baht without doubt the plaintiff claims the rest. Such an agreement is an agreement to settle the dispute between the plaintiff and a defendant who is under contract to be completed by the applicant for a permit. The compromise agreement under Section 850 and the result of a compromise agreement to settle claims that each party agrees to surrender and an end to the right as shown in the compromise agreement that is in accordance P.p. up. . Section 852 of the plaintiff's claims under the original lease was canceled. When the second defendant as a guarantor of debt in the contract was not agreed in the memorandum of agreement with the two defendants are not liable.
Supreme Court to 291/2547.
Letter to the defendant a debt to the SOR indicate that a defendant has withdrawn from the account of the misappropriation of the funds to Sat. They agreed to refund to the misappropriation of the Sun is the only book that the defendants owe a debt to the SOR, and let S 1 and S N, the defendants agreed to settle the disputes that exist with different give grace to each other. It is not a compromise agreement. I will not settle the debt from the end.
The plaintiff is a bank deposit, which has been a Sun customer. Shall have the duty to refund the deposit on Sat Aug claim that a defendant has withdrawn from the account of the misappropriation of the funds to Sat. Make money in the account of the missing MP plaintiff is required to return the missing to the Sun, according to Section 672 of the plaintiff, the defendant is a misappropriation of money to the Sun It is thus not paying their way, knowing that there is no debt to pay. When the plaintiff has paid the debt to the SOR shall have the right to sue a defendant liable for the payments to them under Section 420.
Supreme Court in 5644/2546.
The plaintiff sued to enforce the compromise agreement. Although the original debt, the debt will come from borrowing. The plaintiff sued the defendant did not repay the loan contract. The plaintiff need not have evidence of the loan in writing signed by the borrower to show to the court.
Debt payments, the plaintiff's interest and contributions to the debt of the compromise agreement. Non-loan debt, there is no law that prohibits a plaintiff or a maximum interest rate. Than 15 percent per year.
Supreme Court in 7849/2543.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had made an agreement by the plaintiff and the defendant's statement that the District 2 at the Land Office to the County on September 16, 2537 at 10 o'clock, and agreed that a survey conducted by S. 0.1 The possession of the land by the plaintiff in August a number of the plaintiff, it is the only The defendant referred to the documents, only that the document represents District 2 District 2 is the agreement to jointly request that the land in any way. The defendants deny that they have not made an agreement under which the province has heard that two defendants had made an agreement under which the Mon 2, when an agreement under which the contract documents, the District 2 are both parties. party dispute resolution. Which are or will be completed by the applicant is not the same. As a compromise within the meaning of Section 850, which is evidenced in writing and signed by the defendant, the party liable. The lawsuit by the court under Section 851 would require the defendant to comply with the compromise.
Supreme Court in 8744/2542.
I have to dispute that. Partnership was the original plaintiff bank letter of guarantee of return. Of the defendant is already Partnership and the plaintiff did not claim any doubt in every case, the defendant took it from there. The managing partner of the legal representative of the partnership signed with the plaintiff. The plaintiff in such records sealed after the defendant made a payment transaction. The three ferry boats to the plaintiff by the contract, less cost, then shows the intent of the plaintiff by Clear that the plaintiff waived his right to claim damages from the defendants and fines in all cases in the nature of the dispute about the contract with the ferry. Or will be completed by the applicant is not the same as the Nice Agreement. Compromise settlement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 850 851, and 852 shall be binding on the plaintiff.
Section 851 of the compromise agreement. If there is no evidence either in writing signed by the party liable. The signatures of the representatives of the parties is important. He claims that the court can not
Section 852 of the compromise agreement. I make a claim, each party agrees to surrender the settlement to end. And each party has the right as shown in the contract that was his.
Supreme Court in 4921/2552.
The legacy of Section 1612 waivers permit two types of intent expressly given in writing to the competent official. The compromise agreement is made in accordance with Section 1612 shall mean the director of the county or the sheriff or chief of district and includes a person who acts. So instead of the seven sons of The inheritance to give testimony and written records. Expressly stated that it does not apply to the inheritance of land in the District Administrative Officer. The Head of Government Land Office Suite. As for the Acting Chief Executive Officer. The sheriff has the authority. Administration Regulations Act 2534 Section 38 (10) are in effect at that time to authorize the head of a government based in District government instead. It is official legal tender. But to mention that his seven sons. Not obtain the heritage of this land and allow the defendant was the sole heir to his legacy is not a waiver under Section 1612 because of the legacy, provided, however, prohibited by Section 1613. I said, a compromise agreement to take effect. His seven sons to the defendant shall be bound by Section 850, 852 and 1750.
Supreme Court in 2675/2551.
Testimony of the defendant that the plaintiff did not bring 2 to 4 cases were filed within one year from the date of death, Sat. Four to terminate the plaintiff's case. Supreme Court to rule that the plaintiff in the four terminate the trustee. The defendants do not have to fight them. Continue to fight for the life of the contract. It is not raised like that, then by the Court. Supreme Court has not been diagnosed.
After I sign the divorce between the Sun, stating that the plaintiff in a home with land, building houses for the plaintiff, 2 to 4 sons and 3 is the compromise agreement is a contract to third parties by Section 850 and Section 374 of the first plaintiff as the party has the right to Sat debt repayment by transferring the disputed land to the right and three sons. Was caused by the compromise agreement was not provided by statute. Only to fall under the provisions of Section 193/30 age of 10 years from the date of the compromise agreement.
Complaint at 2 to 4 is a third party that will benefit from a contract between the plaintiff's claim of a third party MP has said the law does not prescribe a prescription. In particular, the age of 10 years under Section 193/30 and the rights of third parties will be held from the debtors that intention. It takes advantage of the agreement in accordance with Section 374 paragraph 2 through 4, when the plaintiff tendered to the debtor, the Sun takes advantage of the contract by the transfer of land and house. Their contract in early 2534 at 2 to 4, the plaintiff may claim the transfer of land and houses by the Sun from the time of the tender, which was filed on April 9, 2542 to no more than 10. year
2 to 4, the plaintiff tendered to the Sun, the receivable to a third party and may not modify or suspend the right of S 2 through 4 in the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 375 is Sat. no right to the disputed land to the plaintiff, defendant, 2 to 4 against the revocation of the transfer between S. ใhgodiesneha the defendant.
Supreme Court in 2675/2551.
After I sign the divorce. Stating that the house number 11 / 1 Tambon Bang Kaew, Muang Ang Thong Ang Thong province. Land, buildings and home to the plaintiff for 2 to 4 sons and 3 is the compromise agreement is a contract to third parties in accordance with Section 850 and Section 374 as a party plaintiff is entitled to. MP calls for debt repayment by transferring the disputed land to the right and three sons. Was caused by the compromise agreement was not provided by statute. Only to fall into force of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 of the age of 10 years from the date of the compromise agreement with the Sun on September 29, 2531 as filed on April 9, 2542 to more than 10 years of litigation. The first part of the plaintiff to terminate the plaintiff, at 2 to 4 is a third party who will benefit from a contract between the plaintiff and the Sun is the case for third party claims of any third party. The law does not prescribe a particular age must be 10 years of age, under Section 193/30 and the rights of third parties will be held from the debtors that intention. It takes advantage of the agreement in accordance with Section 374, paragraph two, on hearing the fact that the plaintiff's intent to Sat 2 to 4 shows the debtor to take advantage of the agreement to transfer land and homes. according Their contract in early 2534 at 2 to 4, the plaintiff may claim the transfer of land and houses by the Sun from the time of intent to sue, which is on the 9th of April in 2542 also. more than 10 years at 2 to 4, the plaintiff's case did not terminate the Sun, a receivable may not modify or suspend the rights of the plaintiff, at 2 to 4 in accordance with Section 375 after the Sat. no right to the land dispute.
Defendant to the plaintiff at 2 to 4, to revoke the transfer of the S. give By affection the defendant.
Supreme Court in 2569/2551.
R. companies to sell the disputed checks signed by the plaintiff by the endorsement. The plaintiff, who by law. When the bank refused to cash the check. Defendants who are ordered to pay, and Rama, who have endorsed a common liability to the plaintiff under Section 914 and Section 967 and Section 989 of the first paragraph shall be considered as a debtor to do so when the plaintiff. compromise agreement, which is regarded as one of the new debt the plaintiff would be entitled to claim payment for their companies, according to Rama, the compromise agreement. No right to call the company liable for the debt, according to Rama in one settlement. The plaintiff's right to claim against the defendant as a liability to the plaintiff in order to pay them. Debt settlement will put an end to the check. This is because the debt-claim in the case of the plaintiff in a settlement to end.
Supreme Court in 1010/2551.
The lawsuit is not prohibited by Section 148 of the pair Civil Procedure Code the two cases is the same party as the plaintiff, the plaintiff's case before a. This case is against the law as minor, but it's a.. The plaintiff sued the defendant in the lawsuit as a party under a compromise settlement, the parties are not the same. It is not a unique case.
Agreement to indemnify the defendant violated the sovereignty of the plaintiff by Deprived children to the plaintiff. No part of any party that wishes to terminate a criminal offense according to the land of the compromise agreement is enforceable under the law. The purpose is not expressly prohibited by law or against a flat. Hundreds, or good morals of the people will be null and void under Section 150.
Supreme Court to 298/2551.
Agreement that a defendant plead guilty to violations. Who was driving the car plaintiff that the car insurance they receive. To repair the damage to be in good condition as before. Even if a defendant is not liable for injuries and medical expenses. But there is no agreement on a waiver claim for damages other parts of the Lord. The defendant claims that the car has a much agreement there is no way to dispute that one exists. Or will be completed by the applicant is not the same. It is not a compromise agreement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 850.
Defendant driving a car accident to pick up the trade business to the defendant's actions violated the defendant's first two acts are in the employ of the defendant 2.
The plaintiff brings the scene to fix the car until the car is in original condition. Plaintiff's claims and issued orders for the car with the receipt, and debt. Paid to the insured vehicle accident already. The plaintiff has to pay for repairs to the garage. The plaintiff is the heir entitled to claim damages from both defendants.
Supreme Court in 8388/2550.
Agreement says. If the plaintiff receives the full amount specified. I do not doubt that the plaintiff claims, civil or criminal, or remove the doubt. This agreement and the defendant must be offered to directors of the defendant's previous The agreement would not dispute that it is completed. It is not the compromise agreement.
The court ruled that the District 9 is in effect the same compromise agreement. The plaintiff's right to bring an action for damages filed in violation of the defendant, the judge acquitted two defendants, two suspended, but disqualified the plaintiff to bring a case to sue under the compromise agreement (document refers Mon 9), even without any party. The appeal means that the document is not the compromise agreement Mon 9. The Court of Appeal agreed that the document represents a compromise agreement Mon 9. The abuse liability between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is still available at the District Court judge acquitted two defendants without prejudice to the right plaintiff to bring a case to sue under the compromise agreement did not like. The problem is that the compromise agreement, or the District 9 is about the power to bring an action against the plaintiff, the defendant filed a second lawsuit by the New Mon 9 documents referring or relating to the law and order. people Court of Appeals for the diagnosis itself.
Supreme Court in 6549/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant had the Labour Court against the defendants with the five to which an employee has violated the plaintiff's. The employer as a civil rights claim. The compromise agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant had a contract for the company. Compromise settlement in a civil case in which there is no agreement that the plaintiff's action is not attracted to. Criminal defendant. It's not exactly the "same offense" against the plaintiff's right to bring a criminal case shall not be extinguished by Civil Procedure Code Section 39 (2).
Supreme Court in 5387 - 5388/2550.
Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant a condition in which the claimant is the defendant intended to work. Completed by the plaintiff. Then deduct the cost of debt and debt issued in this case after case. Construction on the defendant or the plaintiff to pay the debt in full. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to be withdrawn. No one suggests that the plaintiffs agreed to settle the dispute or waiver of prosecution. Criminal defendant the right at all. It is not a criminal offense to bring a lawsuit to stop the Criminal Procedure Code Section 39 (2).
The agreement is one of the plaintiff to the defendant's waiver of repayment. The applicant is not willing to do. It is not a compromise agreement. Debt does not make the check was canceled. Then the new debt under the compromise agreement does not change a thing. This is the essence of debt is not a new debt will make the old debt. Extinguished it. When the defendant did not take money out of the four parties to the plaintiff. Debt and to issue a check for the money but the end result is bound to follow. Act offenses arising from the use of Section 7 in the case did not break.
Supreme Court in 4306/2550.
That a defendant domiciled in Bangkok. The plaintiff sued the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 common liability arising from an agent. If the information is relevant to the case. The plaintiff sued the defendant, a defendant domiciled in Bangkok and 2, which is domiciled in the District Court and the Court of First Instance by P.wi.p. Section 5.
The fact that two representatives of the defendants a duty to persuade the guests to do the coverage purchased, the defendant No. 1 and is responsible for insurance of the defendant that a well would be the guests, including the plaintiff to understand and believe that the defendant 2, say, or do they act within the scope of authority of the two defendants who are representing. Despite the fact that the second defendant to pay premiums in advance will be done outside the jurisdiction of the defendant is represented as a character, it is liable to the plaintiff, a third party who in good faith and in accordance with Section 822. Section 820 without regard to whether the defendant is given an advance payment of such premium or not.
The defendant does not have an organization that represents the premium in advance. And check made payable to the plaintiff to pay the premium does not comply with the instructions. Specified in the receipt of money temporarily, but a defendant is ordered to pay in advance or not. It is a matter between the defendant and a defendant with a second defendant did not raise this issue with a disclaimer.
Agreement that the plaintiff made against two defendants did not dispute that it is completed. But also that the plaintiff does not prosecute the defendant on the second when the accused 2, agreement on other full agreement is not a compromise agreement and the debt was suspended, defendant No. 1 has been committed. will be liable to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 1732/2550.
Defendant's agreement to pay restitution under the responsibility of the Ministry of the plaintiff but the plaintiff and the Ministry has entered into a compromise with the Ministry will be liable for any liability arising from contractual liability of the Ministry of damage. and the liability of the defendants, who bear A. The insurance settlement and an end to the compromise agreement is liable to the plaintiff under Section 850 and 852 g on the liability of the plaintiff is liable under the compromise agreement. Defendant as a guarantor is released from liability to the contractual obligations of the Ministry responsible for damage to the suspension under Section 698.
Supreme Court to 246/2550.
The plaintiff and the partnership with the University. The parties in the case of the compromise agreement and was sentenced by a court allowed a lawsuit to end the dispute that that dispute is not servitude. The suspension shall end. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 852 of the dispute is not the servitude of the land of the plaintiff but the plaintiff is no longer available. Limited access to land for the road in meters to the road, Bangna - Trad. Under the terms of the compromise agreement. Even if the plaintiff is more than 10 years of servitude is vested by statute in accordance with Section 1401.
Supreme Court in 1117/2550.
The second plaintiff, a letter to the bank manager accused Sat. Pak said the two branches of the plaintiff's liability for damages incurred by the plaintiff's account of the two alone. The managers do not have the severe punishment of Rama, the two do not doubt that the plaintiff and defendant, both civil and criminal. The second plaintiff is the only guarantee that no doubt civil and criminal claims for the defendants. The defendant did not enter into agreements with parties in the dispute between plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and will finish with the same grace. Into a compromise agreement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 850.
Supreme Court to 718/2550.
The hours drive from Bangkok to the province of Chai Nat, on the orders of May, a managing director at Sun and the employer to take May to negotiate to pay damages if the Sun was driving collided with. other people's cars during the duties of the Commissioner as to the compensation Por the compromise is based on Section 850, 852 for the breach of May, the company may be liable for Wed. damaged by the Section 77, 425, 427 to negotiate the restitution of May to benefit the working or protection, so it was not Por the protection of the employer. But according to the order of the employer, but the go ahead to negotiate compensation. The criminals use guns to shoot at, and died May not be the cause of criminal use of firearms, it did not occur. During the negotiations, or damages resulting from the negotiations. The reason is that normally would occur from the trip. It is not a direct result of the work. Or protect the interests of the employer. The employer or by order of the PM and Wed death, it does not matter because it works. Or protect the interests of the Company from May, the employer is not in danger, in accordance with Section 5 of the Compensation Act 2537.
Supreme Court in 8231/2549.
In the case before the plaintiff sued the defendant to pay child support under the agreement and pay a 11,000 baht, half a pension. The plaintiff is a company jointly owned by the pension The defendant then retirement. The plaintiff, the defendant entered into a compromise agreement that does not fill the request. The defendant agreed to pay 11,000 baht care to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had no doubt continue to admonish the case. Means that the plaintiff satisfied to trigger the care of the defendant to pay 11,000 baht without doubt be referred to the defendant to pay for care anymore, as the plaintiff filed a case asking the defendant to pay for care to be sued. repeatedly Even in the case before the Court referred to the care, based on the information memorandum. Because of the memorandum of the relationship between husband and wife of the plaintiff. The defendant as provided in Section 1461, paragraph two, because even in the case before the plaintiff can not claim a right to sue the plaintiff's memorandum to the defendant. Care already. Issue of the case to trial before the same issues and that is to call the care by the second paragraph of Section 1461 plaintiff filed this lawsuit is filed a case before the Civil Procedure Code Section 148. paragraph.
Supreme Court in 8141/2549.
Prior to the termination of the contract agreement between them. Dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant has had talks with many, many times before. The plaintiff's claim for an allowance calculated by the amount of the defendant. Higher than that of the plaintiff should receive a total payment of wage arrears and the location and the agreement to terminate the contract of employment clause 3 states that the plaintiff satisfied the terms of such records without a doubt a call anything else. longer regarded as the plaintiff waived the right to claim unpaid wages and money. Money where it can be included in the grant agreement by then. Termination of the contract agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is a compromise settlement agreement under Section 850.
Supreme Court in 6002/2549.
Although the defendant No. 1 and No. 3 agreed with the plaintiff states that it is a compromise agreement. The agreement says that a defendant is charged a premium by the insured does not apply to them. The plaintiff in the amount of USD 446,855.47 for the reimbursement of the amount of restoring the plaintiff. And repayment of debt, payable by check payable to the plaintiff and the first six installments due in the next day. The rest paid in the coming months, without the intent of the defendant shows the plaintiff to agree to a settlement that would have the grace to live with each other. The agreement is not a compromise agreement. The agency will hold an end to the debt under Section 850 and 852, the second defendant as a guarantor is not released from liability for debts contracted agents.
Supreme Court in 4948/2549.
The plaintiff and the Ministry of divorce by agreement the assets under the settlement, and the presence of an employee who has clearly stated that both parties consent to the application for registration of divorce. A husband and wife voluntarily and agree to divide the property. Including rubber plantations, property, filed Aug. 1, according to the plaintiff and that the Ministry intends to settle disputes about property, existing or to be held the next. Let's face it, with different parties are not permitted to compromise the compromise agreement under Section 850 on a compromise agreement regarding the property. As a result, the plaintiff's claims on the property extinguished. The plaintiff had the right as shown in the new settlement, in accordance with Section 852 only the plaintiff has no right to divide the property by filing a claim.
Supreme Court to 574/2549.
The court initially sentenced the defendant to pay plaintiff the two together. However, the two defendants do not settle. The plaintiff asked the court filing that the two defendants and the plaintiff sued the defendant in this case, both a criminal and it is. Compromise agreement. To suspend execution until the second defendant to comply with the compromise agreement. According to a statement of the plaintiff and the defendant advised the court that the two criminal defendants, provided that if a full repayment to the plaintiff. Plaintiff would not doubt the claim against the defendant No. 2 anymore, but the plaintiff and the defendant, the two have agreed that the defendant is a non-payment to the plaintiff or the payment is complete, then the plaintiff to consent to the defendant. 2 released from liability or not. The above statement is just another reason to postpone the meeting for another appointment to listen to the verdict. Only. There is no way that the plaintiff accused the two have agreed to settle the disputes existing between them and allow them to finish with the same period of the contract is not a compromise. The right to suspend enforcement of the plaintiff is not the end.
Supreme Court in 6639/2548.
Agreement for debt payment of damages to the defendant a lease agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been damaged so that the plaintiff or the defendant is a defendant in a breach of the lease. And allow them to pay damages to the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the twelfth installment 100,000 according to Article 4, such that if a defendant fails to pay the full amount of 100,000 baht without doubt the plaintiff claims the rest. Such an agreement is an agreement to settle the dispute between the plaintiff and a defendant who is under contract to be completed by the applicant for a permit. The compromise agreement under Section 850 and the result of a compromise agreement to settle claims that each party agrees to surrender and an end to the right as shown in the compromise agreement that is in accordance P.p. up. . Section 852 of the plaintiff's claims under the original lease was canceled. When the second defendant as a guarantor of debt in the contract was not agreed in the memorandum of agreement with the two defendants are not liable.
Supreme Court to 291/2547.
Letter to the defendant a debt to the SOR indicate that a defendant has withdrawn from the account of the misappropriation of the funds to Sat. They agreed to refund to the misappropriation of the Sun is the only book that the defendants owe a debt to the SOR, and let S 1 and S N, the defendants agreed to settle the disputes that exist with different give grace to each other. It is not a compromise agreement. I will not settle the debt from the end.
The plaintiff is a bank deposit, which has been a Sun customer. Shall have the duty to refund the deposit on Sat Aug claim that a defendant has withdrawn from the account of the misappropriation of the funds to Sat. Make money in the account of the missing MP plaintiff is required to return the missing to the Sun, according to Section 672 of the plaintiff, the defendant is a misappropriation of money to the Sun It is thus not paying their way, knowing that there is no debt to pay. When the plaintiff has paid the debt to the SOR shall have the right to sue a defendant liable for the payments to them under Section 420.
Supreme Court in 5644/2546.
The plaintiff sued to enforce the compromise agreement. Although the original debt, the debt will come from borrowing. The plaintiff sued the defendant did not repay the loan contract. The plaintiff need not have evidence of the loan in writing signed by the borrower to show to the court.
Debt payments, the plaintiff's interest and contributions to the debt of the compromise agreement. Non-loan debt, there is no law that prohibits a plaintiff or a maximum interest rate. Than 15 percent per year.
Supreme Court in 7849/2543.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had made an agreement by the plaintiff and the defendant's statement that the District 2 at the Land Office to the County on September 16, 2537 at 10 o'clock, and agreed that a survey conducted by S. 0.1 The possession of the land by the plaintiff in August a number of the plaintiff, it is the only The defendant referred to the documents, only that the document represents District 2 District 2 is the agreement to jointly request that the land in any way. The defendants deny that they have not made an agreement under which the province has heard that two defendants had made an agreement under which the Mon 2, when an agreement under which the contract documents, the District 2 are both parties. party dispute resolution. Which are or will be completed by the applicant is not the same. As a compromise within the meaning of Section 850, which is evidenced in writing and signed by the defendant, the party liable. The lawsuit by the court under Section 851 would require the defendant to comply with the compromise.
Supreme Court in 8744/2542.
I have to dispute that. Partnership was the original plaintiff bank letter of guarantee of return. Of the defendant is already Partnership and the plaintiff did not claim any doubt in every case, the defendant took it from there. The managing partner of the legal representative of the partnership signed with the plaintiff. The plaintiff in such records sealed after the defendant made a payment transaction. The three ferry boats to the plaintiff by the contract, less cost, then shows the intent of the plaintiff by Clear that the plaintiff waived his right to claim damages from the defendants and fines in all cases in the nature of the dispute about the contract with the ferry. Or will be completed by the applicant is not the same as the Nice Agreement. Compromise settlement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 850 851, and 852 shall be binding on the plaintiff.
