Age of inheritance Case

Section 1754 To prohibits the prosecution of a legacy case after the expiration of one year. But when the inheritance died, or when the heirs know. Should know the death of the hereditary.

Lawsuit against the will. No one will be able to sue after one year since the acquaintance knows or should know the right of the will.

Subject to section 193/27 of this Code. If the creditor's claim to the estate is longer than one year. The creditor is not liable after a year since the creditor. Should know the death of the hereditary.

Nevertheless Claims as provided in the preceding paragraph shall not be imposed after ten years from the date of death.

Section 1755, one year It can be lifted up by the person who is the heir. Or the person who likes to exercise the rights of the heirs. Or by the estate manager.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10318/2559.

The plaintiff sued the applicant for the appointment of a liquidator of the non-registered partnership between the plaintiff and A. did not sue for inheritance as a legal successor, or sued the will of the will. Even with the request for the defendant to take money from the estate of A. to pay the plaintiff. It is just a call for a return of capital and profits calculated from the settlement of the partnership not registered between the plaintiff and A. in the estate of A. only the inheritance or lawsuit that the creditor requested to enforce the claim. Have a succession Defendant will raise the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754 to fight the plaintiff did not. Although it is heard that the plaintiff sued the case after the expiration of one year from the date of the death of the plaintiff sued the plaintiff did not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9124/2559.

Although the plaintiff sued the defendant as a heir of the plaintiff to be liable under the lease after the expiration of 1 year from the date of the death of the defendant as the defendant to fight the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 1754, paragraph three, but at the end of the debt is still not defaulted after the death of the payment has been paid to the plaintiff to the defendant that the first defendant and confirmed that after the death. t Death of the defendant to the plaintiff to transfer the name of the parties to the lease agreement as a defendant, but the plaintiff did not proceed, but the defendant to pay the rent to the plaintiff, the defendant to pay the rent. Later The circumstances of the defendant who is the beneficiary of the will of the contractor will change the name of the contract and pay the rent of the car to the plaintiff. The term of the lease is not the date of the case, so it does not start from the date the plaintiff knows or should know the death of the defendant under Section 1754, paragraph three, but must start from the date the plaintiff may enforce. The claim under the lease agreement is to be in accordance with Section 193/12 is the date that the lease is terminated whether the vehicle is lost as a defendant, the defendant or combat. The defendant failed to pay defaults as the plaintiff claimed by the defendant. This case, the plaintiff sued the defendants to pay compensation for the lack of interest in the use of hire-purchase cars and penalties, and to deliver or use the car rental price, which is not specified by law, so it is 10 years under the provisions. 193/30 When the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on May 20, 2008, the plaintiff's case in the debt under the lease agreement does not terminate the right to claim under the guarantee contract. 3 made to terminate the plaintiff was not the same. The plaintiff has the right to claim the third defendant to pay the plaintiff to file a suit.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14516/2558.

The plaintiff as a creditor claim to the defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant as a manager of A. who has the legal rights and obligations in the management of the inheritance or to share the property is liable under the contract. Hire a car that is made with the plaintiff, which must be filed within one year from the date of knowing or should know the death of the estate under Section 1754 paragraph. The plaintiff is the case where the owner of the property to track and recover his property from the person who has no right to be held under Section 1336, when the facts of the plaintiff's case in the case number. At 7824/2550 Red number 2979/2551 of the Court of First Instance that binds this case. The plaintiff as the creditor of the estate knows from August 28, 2006, from the date until the date of the plaintiff filed this case on June 26, 2008 has expired 1 year.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10692/2558.

        Legitimacy cases are different types of cases. Laws are separate and separate in the law enforcement. The lawsuit regarding the inheritance is five years, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733, paragraph two, the case is under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, the second and third defendants are not inheritors, but heirs. And the plaintiff filed a lawsuit. It is a legacy. The age of 1754, while the plaintiff sued the defendant, the first, which is a trustee. The claim may divide the inheritance of the plaintiff from the second and third defendants, which is the heir to the case on the management of the inheritance. Section 193/9 states that "any claim. If not within the legal period. Section 193/14 stipulates that "the age of stumbling stops in the following cases: (1) ... any act of unreasonableness shall implicitly demonstrate that the condition of the debt According to the claim ... "and Section 193/15, paragraph one," When the age of stumbling stops. The second paragraph states that "when the age of the interruption ceases, the age of the new age begins." The plaintiff demanded the inheritance of the defendant. No. 2 and No. 3, which is in force under Section 1754, and is in force under Section 193/9, Section 193/14 and Section 193/15, with the fact that at the death of the day. On July 27, 1994, the Court of Appeal established the Legislature's estate on July 18, 2538, so the age of inheritance ceased in accordance with Section 193/14. The second and third defendants as the heirs of the state on September 28, 2538 without transfer to the plaintiff, a heir. But from the testimony of the defendant that the plaintiff also owns property inherited by the House, which is part of the legacy of the dispute. It is the case that the defendants 2 and 3 acted without any doubt that implicitly implies that the plaintiff still possesses the inheritance, which causes the age to stop stumbling under Section 193/14, but when there. The fact that MPs mortgage redemption by MPs have notified the mortgagee banks. The bank does not provide the land use certificate to the plaintiff. And the transfer of their own land to the defendants 2 and 3 of the circumstances of the defendants 2 and 3, the defendant is not intended to inherit the plaintiff from the date the bank informed the plaintiff no later than day. Therefore, the possession of the plaintiff's property, which causes the age of stumble to cease, is not considered the plaintiff's possession of the inheritance is not divided. But that day. The new counting began on that day, according to Section 193/15, paragraph two, the plaintiff filed the case for more than one year. Section 1754, paragraph one shall be terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9745/2558.

The two plaintiffs as the estate manager of the House and the Senate sued to return the property dispute, which is 18 plots of land in the possession of the four defendants claimed to be the estate of the two inheritance. The four defendants said that. 8 plots of land dispute defendant 1 was transferred from the two inheritance before the two inheritance will die. The land is not the property of the two inheritances. For the remaining 10 plots of land, the defendant was transferred from the House of Lords, which was the property of the MP and liked to have possession for themselves throughout. Plaintiff sued the case after one year. From the day they both died. The case is terminated. The issue is that. Is the land dispute 8 of the estate of the two inheritance? And as the former estate manager of the transfer of land dispute 10 plots to the defendant 1 like it or not. The Court of First Instance did not rationalize the dispute, but it is clear that the plaintiff's case is terminated under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph one is not like. Both cases, both plaintiffs as the trustee filed a lawsuit to recover the property and requested to withdraw the legal act from the inheritors inherited illegally due to the management of the property has not ended, which has maturity. Especially under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733, paragraph two, it may not be the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph one, which is about the prosecution of inheritance between the heirs to adjust. The force

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1774/2558.

After the death of the husband, by law, the heir to the inheritance of the inheritance of the family. I have to give 3 to 4 times a year. The MP gave rice to the mon and before the death of the MP told the monk that if the death of the MP then deal with legacy. Have the facts also? The work continues The defendant, as the estate manager of the House of Representatives, proceeds to transfer the land title deed no. 11467 to the defendant, only the part of the defendants in the land dispute is also the name of the defendant as the former defendant as the estate of the MPs accept the right to receive. In addition, after the lawsuit. The fact is that this is a circumstance that shows that the MP and the defendant as the trustee, representing the beneficiary of the inheritance. Satisfaction of the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/24, the defendant can not raise the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754 paragraph one up the plaintiff, who is the estate manager. Eldon

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1276/2558.

         The plaintiff has the right of inheritance of the plaintiff since the registration of the plaintiff was adopted by the deceased wife, who is the wife of the law of the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is considered a successor. The son of the law of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1627 when the death before the death of the father. The property is a disputed land, which is private property. The spouse is a heir apparent under the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 1629, paragraph two, and has the right of inheritance of MPs under Section 1635, even if the consent of the defendant is a trustee and not interfere with the estate. But when it does not appear that the intention to waive the inheritance under Section 1612 BC, is still legally entitled to legally abolished the legacy of the death of the estate without sharing the estate. The plaintiff, who is the descendant of the inheritance of the plaintiff as a legal successor son. The right to sue the defendant as a manager of the estate of the land dispute as a legacy of the MP in the fall to the defendant is the estate of the MPA, which is obliged to share the inheritance of the heirs. People, including spouses who were alive while the brigade died. The defendant as the estate transfer manager property dispute three legally converted. The only thing that can be shared is the unlawful inheritance. The defendant did not have ownership of the land. And it is considered that the ownership of the registered land in the land is only the possession of the dispute instead of all other descendants of all. Defendant can not raise the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754 to fight the plaintiff, who is entitled to inheritance of the MP in the fall, the plaintiff's case is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 19775/2557.

Case before the plaintiff sued the defendant is a criminal case to the court. The misappropriation of the defendant's estate, the first defendant. Case completed. The court ordered the staff to conduct investigations and investigate the defendants. Judgment of 23 November 2010, the plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit on November 27, 2009 that the plaintiff has the right to inherit his father to replace the death of his father, but the first defendant, The other person has committed a criminal offense by concealing the heirs of other persons registered to transfer the inheritance of land and buildings to their own and to register the sale to the defendant. Do not act to revoke such It is a civil case that the plaintiff sued the civil suit because the defendant claims that criminal 1 under Section 51 of the Civil Code, which the age of civil suit must be enforced by the SEC Section 51 paragraph two, which states that. Prosecution of the criminal case to the court and the offender to the court. Criminal cases are not strictly enforced. The victim will file civil law stumbles. When the plaintiff filed this case during the criminal case. Plaintiff's case is not terminated according to Section 1754

Judgment of the Supreme Court 17502/2557.

When the plaintiff sued the defendant as a personal transferee of inheritance and as the estate of the MPA claim that the defendant did not like the inheritance to request the court to revoke the transfer of the law and the defendant transferred the estate, which is the property of the property. A lawsuit for inheritance from one heir. It is a legacy. Defendant has the right to life under Section 1754 up the plaintiff.

When the facts appear. The plaintiff and all children of K. never followed the management of the estate of the MP and the plaintiff brought the case to sue on June 30, 2008 for 22 years since the death and almost 20 years since. Date of transfer of land to the defendant. The claim of the plaintiff in the property of the age of the Civil Section 1754 paragraph at the end of the plaintiff has no right to sue for the revocation of the law on the transfer of land to the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 16430/2557.

         His death on April 7, 1981, but no inheritance and inheritance. The prosecution of inheritance under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733 and Section 1754 is not counted and the defendant as the estate manager of Mr. Rich possession of the inheritance instead of the heirs, the defendant never changed the nature of the retention. The four plaintiffs and K. Do not intend to replace the longer. Defendant can not claim possession, according to Section 1381 and Section 1384.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14174/2557.

The plaintiff sued the lawsuit between the defendant and the defendant by the defendant is the main complaint. The plaintiff is the lawful child of A. and the land dispute is the property of the parents of the plaintiff when the plaintiff's father died. Dispute land is an inheritance to the plaintiff as a legal successor of A. The mother of the plaintiff. Land registration and conversion to the defendant by affection. The plaintiff did not know. Defendant to fight that the plaintiff is not the lawful child of A. and A. have no power to sue and the plaintiff's case has expired inheritance. The case has a dispute. The plaintiff is a lawful child of A. and a heir is eligible for inheritance in the land disputes only A. The legacy of inheritance falls under the legacy of inheritance, which prohibits the prosecution of inheritance. After one year But when the inheritance dies. Or ever since the heirs knew or should know the death of the inheritance under Section 1754 paragraph one, and also in the provisions of Section 1754, paragraph four of the Act. "However, Claims as provided in the preceding paragraph shall not be imposed after the expiration of ten years. But when the bridegroom died, "although the lawsuit does not appear that a. However, according to the indictment, a. Died before March 15, 1974, A. filed a petition for land disputes. When counting to the date of filing, April 5, 2007, ten years after the death. The plaintiff's case is due to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph four, even if the defendant is not the heirs or inheritors of the A, but the transferor of the land disputes to the defendant is a spouse who is the heirs of the A. Section 1635 of the defendant is a person who would like to exercise the rights of the heirs of the age of up to fight the plaintiff under Section 1755.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 12093/2557.

Even the plaintiff sued the defendant as the trustee of the two inheritance. But the defendant did not explicitly stated that. Plaintiff's case is terminated because of a lawsuit regarding the inheritance. To be filed within five years from the management of the end of Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733, paragraph two, the defendant stated in the statement that the plaintiff sued more than ten years. So it's over. Hold the age that the defendant is claiming. Age of inheritance under Section 1754 has no issue. The plaintiff's case is about the management of inheritance under Section 1733, paragraph two, even if the defendant jointly. The plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the management of the inheritance. But the defendant and the defendant did not share a common interest in the merits of the case. I do not know that the defendant raised the age of inheritance to fight with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 59, the Court of Appeal 2 ruled that the plaintiff's case is out of respect for the management of the inheritance. It is a non-issue. Unlawful It is not raised that is already in the appeal. Even the plaintiff does not petition this. But the problem is a public peace problem. The Supreme Court has the power to lift the decision under Section 142 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8985/2557.

In the determination that the plaintiff sued by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733, paragraph two, it is necessary to listen to the fact that the first defendant as the estate manager has completed the estate or not. And when is it finished? When the defendant stated that he had conferred the heirs to manage the estate and heirs agreed that the land dispute is the ownership of the defendant 1 and 2, but the defendant 1 and 2 to pay the debt to all companies by other heirs. Be responsible And subsequent defendants 1 and 2 to repay and redeem the mortgage land from the company and the defendant to transfer the land to the second defendant ownership of the estate. The fight that the plaintiff agreed to share the estate, as the plaintiff and other heirs agreed. If it is true that the defendant's claim that the management of the estate of the defendant 1 finished, but the defendant to a redemption of property, inheritance and land transfer to the second defendant to hold the title. The inheritance between heirs. I like the Court of First Instance to listen to such facts to stop that. Have agreed as such or not. If no such agreement. The defendant as a land transfer manager inherited his own and the second defendant and transferred to the third defendant can not be regarded as a share of inheritance. Land ownership of the defendants 2 and 3, heirs of the inheritance is considered as a replacement for another heir, and it is not held that the management of the estate is completed by the defense of the defendant, so the Court of First Instance waive the plaintiff's testimony. And the three witnesses against the defendants together with the eleven defendants. And the legal problem that the plaintiff sued the defendant for the first time in accordance with Section 1733 paragraph two and plaintiff sued the defendant for the second and third defendants under Section 1754, and the dismissal is not like.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8371/2557.

The share of the inheritance, which may be made by the heirs, occupies a portion of the property under Section 1750 of the Civil and Commercial Code. In the case where the facts must be clarified, the heirs have agreed to share the inheritance by having each of them inherit the property according to that share in a clear way that any heirs to inherit the land in which it. The territory and the land to occupy, separate enough to separate enough to register the separation of ownership. When the facts from the detective are not So the land disputes are not free from the property of the property and the case must be considered that the first and the defendant disposed of the land dispute is occupied instead of other heirs of the case. Section 1748, paragraph one of the plaintiff, which is the descendant of K. because of the succession of the inheritance of the district has the right to claim to share the property of the land dispute. Although the inheritance of the inheritance under Section 1754, then the plaintiff's case does not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7844/2557.

The three plaintiffs and the defendants are the same successor of the same property. Like to get equal share of inheritance. They have rights and duties related to inheritance management that are not shared until the inheritance is completed. It can be considered that the plaintiffs and the third defendant in the land dispute as well as the defendant as the estate manager of the transfer of land dispute to the defendant 2 solely without the consent. From every heir The misconduct of the estate manager under Section 1719, so the three plaintiffs as the heirs, the stakeholders and the right to inherit property will file a share of the estate, the defendant transferred to the second defendant. The sole defendant from the defendant in Section 1745 under Section 1363, when the plaintiff sued the third defendant as a manager of the estate to transfer the land dispute to the second defendant, but only the defendant. Which one is correct It is a case of inheritance management. The mandatory age under Section 1733 paragraph two is not enforceable under Section 1754, paragraph one, and Section 1755.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7036/2557.

The age of inheritance under Section 1754 of the law prohibits the prosecution. After 1 year since the death of the inheritance. But since the heir apparent knows or should know the death of the inheritance. But it is not allowed to prosecute ten years after the death of the bride. Applicable for cases where the heirs filed a claim for inheritance from the inherited heir, which has not yet been shared. However, if a trustee is appointed to collect the inheritance, the inheritance is made. As long as there is no sharing of inheritance or sharing of legacy is not completed. Asset inheritance is in the process of inheritance management, heirs have the right to request the inheritor to share the estate at any time. No age When disputed land is not inherited, share it with the descendants. It is considered to be in the process of managing the inheritance of the estate manager. Article 1754 does not apply. The plaintiff's lawsuit has not yet expired.

Even the defendant must be eliminated to inherit the land disputes. But the removal of inheritance is a matter of the defendant. The successor of the defendant to inherit the defendant. The fact is that the defendant's defense. Defendant has 4 children, so the defendant has a successor can be successor to the defendant as if the defendant died under Section 1607 when the heirs of the brigade are all 10 people, although one heir died before. The death of S. The defendant, a descendant of a person was eliminated to inherit the land disputes. The defendant has a successor inheritance instead of the defendant, so the land dispute is divided into 10 times the number of heirs of the plaintiff, the three have the right to receive a share of land dispute one by one in 10 parts of the judgment of the Court of Appeal stood by the Court of First Instance Judgment. By the defendant to register the land dispute divided the three plaintiffs. If the defendant does not comply, the judgment on behalf of the intent. It is a judgment of the plaintiff's application to force the three to put the name of the three plaintiffs ownership of land disputes. If the defendant fails to comply with the judgment on behalf of the intention of the defendant completely. There is no need to set conditions if the defendant can not continue to serve the sentence. The removal of inheritance is a diagnosis of the heirship of the heirs. No need to specify in the judgment to enforce the case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1533/2557.

The age of the lawsuit filed under Section 1754 is the case where the heirs do not have possession of the inheritance lawsuit for inheritance as the right to inherit the law. If the inheritance is not shared and the heir still possesses the inheritance or another heir is inherited. In this case, the heirs can sue for the inheritance under Section 1748, not under the provisions of Section 1754, because there is no law enforcing the heirs who do not own inheritance property, but other heirs possession, must file for inheritance. The other heirs to replace in 1 year and the heirs have inherited some of the heirs instead of other heirs. If you have not changed the intention of possession. It is considered a possession instead. When the defendant 2 and 3, the right to inherit the school property as a plaintiff instead. And did not intend to change the possession. Even the plaintiff sued the inheritance over 10 years since the estate died. The case will not expire. The age of inheritance under Section 1754 may not be enforced.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 21897/2056.

As plaintiff's estate manager, as the estate manager of the mother, the plaintiff sued the land dispute, which claimed to be the property of the mother, plaintiff returned from the three defendants. The land dispute disputes the return of the three defendants as the owner of the right to track their property returned from the person who has no right to hold. Is not the heir to the inheritance dispute over the right to claim the share of inheritance will be subject to the age of inheritance under Section 1754, even if the plaintiff sued the three defendants over 10 years. But the plaintiff's mother, which the plaintiff claimed to be an inheritance of death. Plaintiff's case does not terminate. The plaintiff sued the claim. After the mother of the plaintiff died. The father of the plaintiff brought the property of the estate of the plaintiff's mother to buy multiple plots of land, including land disputes. According to the indictment, it is the case of the property to inherit property, so even if it is true, as the plaintiff claimed. Land disputes that the plaintiff's father bought is not the property of the mother of the plaintiff. The property of the plaintiff's father. The money spent from the inheritance. If it exceeds what it should have been, it is a plaintiff's father will be liable to the heirs of the mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff may seek to bring the three defendants to be liable for this case. The problem that the plaintiff has the right to sue the three defendants handed over land disputes returned? It is a matter of law suits, which is a problem of law relating to public order. There is no party to any petition. The Supreme Court has raised its own diagnosis of Civil Code Section 246 and Section 247.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 16195/2013.

This case is the plaintiff's pledge of the defendant's mortgage auctioned by the Court of First Instance. But not enough money. And it appears that the defendant died. The plaintiff asked the defendant to seize the land dispute, which is the property of the defendant. It is the plaintiff's request to execute the case from the estate of the defendant as provided in Section 271 of the Civil Code, which the plaintiff has the right to do so within a period of 10 years is not a matter for the plaintiff sued. The inheritance is one year since the plaintiff's creditor knows or should know the death of the inheritance under Section 1754, paragraph three as claimed by the claimant. The three petitioners can not raise this claim to request the court to revoke the enforcement of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 296.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13399/2056.

Requesting the court to order the removal of the estate under Section 1727 paragraph one, any stakeholder in the estate must request before the estate is completed. Once the facts have been heard, the legacy has been completed before the objection is lodged with the applicant. The petitioner denied that the estate management was not finished. Because the claimants misappropriation of the inheritance of the singer and husband unilaterally. This is illegal management of the legacy. Even such claims may be grounds for requesting removal of the petitioner from being a trustee. But the cause of the inheritance management is not finished yet. Otherwise, it is an extension of the inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754 is not over, because the property is in the process of being managed by the estate manager under Section 1748.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8811/2556.

The loan agreement between the plaintiff and the MP did not set the repayment period. The plaintiff will call the defendant to pay the debt immediately under Section 203 paragraph one, and the time that the lender may enforce claims. The term begins on the day following the date of the loan agreement and when the death of the plaintiff before the claim can not use the age of the plaintiff's claim, because the claim to the estate, which is not yet scheduled. When the inheritance of death before it. Creditors must file lawsuits to enforce their claims. Within a year of knowing the death of the estate. When the plaintiff testified that the MP died on December 1, 2005, and the plaintiff was helping the funeral. The plaintiff knows about the death of the MP since December 2005, the plaintiff brought the case to the defendant as the descendant of the MP to repay the loan on February 14, 2008, expires 1 year from the date the plaintiff knows. The death of the plaintiff sued the plaintiff's death under Section 1754 paragraph three.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4578/2056.

The plaintiff is a guarantor of the debt to the company to the company. Later, the plaintiff has paid the debt to the company after the death of MP. The plaintiff is the recipient of the right to be a creditor to the company to recuse the defendant as the trustee of the death of the plaintiff's death of the plaintiff has just been held on the plaintiff's debt to the company m after. I'm dead. The plaintiff is not a creditor in the right to recourse while the MP is dead. The plaintiff's right to recourse after the death of MPs has passed. The age of the recourse of the plaintiff is not law-specific, so it is 10 years old, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 will bring the age of 1 year under Section 1754 paragraph three, which is the age of the right to call. The creditors are not available to the inheritance.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 22788/2555.

When the plaintiff never occupied the estate dispute, which is not shared between the heirs. It is not a case of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1748 that the plaintiff will use the right to claim to share the property even after the age of inheritance. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit 10 years after the death of her husband. Must be prohibited from filing under Section 1754 paragraph and the right to inheritance will fall to the defendant, the successor of the successor of the inheritance. The defendant requested to be the successor of the estate to have the power to change the registration documents to complete the right to property dispute disputes legacy. For the benefit of the plaintiff, which terminated the right to prosecute the estate by the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754. And although the defendant will testify that the reason for the transfer of land dispute is the name of the defendant for convenience. In dividing the inheritance of his heirs, it is not considered that the intention to pay the benefits of age under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/24, the plaintiff can not take advantage of Section 193. / 24 Section 1748 claim, the defendant claimed to divide the estate passed on the age of the estate under section 1754 then the defendant shall be entitled to raise the age of the Mayan heritage prosecution under Section 193/10.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15039/2555.

Singers and dissidents are the heirs and the children of the deceased. The singer was appointed as the deceased's estate manager. The landlord disagreed with the land before the inheritance, living alone, until his death and was appointed governor. The possession of the land dispute of the petitioner is the possession of the intention to seize it. And no law says that. Any one heir possesses a single inheritance is clearly considered to be a replacement for another heir. And when the inheritance died. The objection has never landed dispute and never requested to divide inheritance within the age of inheritance 1 year under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754 paragraph one. The objection has recently sought to divide the estate after the applicant has been appointed as a trustee. Over a year, therefore, the claim of the objection to claim the petitioner is prohibited under Section 1754, paragraph one. Because of this, the estate dispute is the property of the singer completely. And the petitioner filed a request for inheritance after the death of nearly 3 years, not specified in the petition to bring the land disputes to the heirs, it is just that the petitioner has the power to change the registration. Only For the benefit of the objection and the other heirs who have the right to sue for inheritance by the age of under Section 1754, paragraph one, but any claim that the petitioner is a manager can not hold that the petitioner. According to Section 193/24, the inheritance of the claimant mentioned above is not a substitute for the other heirs, and instead of those who oppose it. The right to inherit it by age. So it is not possible for the objections to be the heirs or the stakeholders to file an objection to the inheritance. And asked to set up a trustee under Section 1713.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14225/2555.

The land title deed is just a document showing ownership of the land. It is not a land of inheritance. Therefore, the possession of the title deed is not a possession of property. According to the meaning of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1748, the first four plaintiffs claim that possession of property is entitled to sue for inheritance, even if ten years after the death of the estate. Section 1754 of the Fourth Plaintiff has no right to sue for inheritance of the case, it does not need to determine whether the defendant as a trustee acts in the proper management of the inheritance. Even the defendant will not perform properly. It does not change the outcome of the case. The four plaintiffs claim in the petition that the age of ten stumbles because the defendant was appointed as the estate of Juan, then the four plaintiffs did not raise the facts or laws explicitly claim that the petition is in accordance. Any law The Supreme Court did not like the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 249 paragraph one, the Supreme Court does not accept.

The Supreme Court ruled that 7458/2553.

When the Court of First Instance ordered Mrs. Nang to be the trustee of Mrs. Yai, it is her duty to share the inheritance with the heirs. As a result, the four plaintiff's heirs do not need to be sued within the age of inheritance for a year because of the stumbling block in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/14, and it is considered that she is a manager. Legitimately occupying a legacy that has not been shared by the successor of Mr. Y. Everyone, even later, Ms. as the estate manager transferred the land dispute, which is the estate of Mr. Yai to the defendant, one of his successors. It's Unlawfully share the estate, the defendant did not own the land dispute. And the inheritance management does not like it will make the management of the estate has not ended. Disputed land is also a property in the estate of Mr. Yai and is still in the process of dividing the estate. When the defendant transferred the land dispute from the lady, it must be considered that the defendant occupy the land dispute over all other heirs. The four plaintiffs claim to divide the dispute under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1748, paragraph one of the four plaintiffs have not terminate their inheritance.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 454/2553.

The plaintiff sued the land dispute disputes the four defendants as owners. The right to follow their property back from the person who has no right to hold. The lawsuit does not refer to the estate, which refers to the case where the heirs have the right to inherit the same dispute over the right to claim a share of inheritance. Is not in the age of inheritance under Section 1754

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7667/2552.

The date of the death of the MP is the plaintiff's plaintiff and the defendant has possession of the property is a legacy. The share of inheritance under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1750, paragraph one, and it is considered that the completion of the inheritance from the date of possession of a section. Is there any problem with the plaintiff's lawsuit to terminate the 1-year inheritance under Section 1754?

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7199/2552.

The requirements in the will write itself. When the estate is over, the house and land dispute. The inheritance allows the right to live and the right to eat to the defendant has the power to occupy and eat for life. But if the defendant died at any time. This house and land are fully owned by all children born to f. All children of f. Share ownership of this house and land. The requirements of the will. The inheritance did not take ownership of the land and the dispute to the defendant. The only right to live and keep alive for the defendant. The defendant's rights as a testator will only be determined by the will. The ownership of the land and the dispute must be handed down to the plaintiffs, the three of which are children of f. When the defendant is dead, according to the conditions that the testamentary will be legally required to claim after the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 1674, Section 1674, paragraph two, shall be deemed to have counted from the death of the inheritance and the will of the defendant. The result is that only the defendant has the right to live and eat in the house and land disputes throughout the life of the defendant only. It must be considered that the defendant occupied the house and land disputes instead of the plaintiff's three wills, which condition and pre-conditions are not successful. The defendant has no right to raise the age to fight the plaintiffs. Section 1755 recognizes the right of a person to raise the age of the offender, but only the person who is the heir or the person who desires to exercise his or her heirship or inheritance.

           The defendant has no right to apply for inheritance, land and property dispute as their own. Because the house and land dispute is legacy, the inheritance of the will to the three plaintiffs. Only the conditions precedent to the land and disputes were handed down, the plaintiffs were not successful because the defendant was not the only death. House and land dispute is not the property will be handed over to the defendant as the heirs under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1620.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2220/2552.

The land dispute is a Sin Somros between the MPs and defendants 1 when MPs died without doing testament. As part of the MPs, one of the defendant's successors is the trustee of MPs. According to the court order, he is the legal representative of the heirs to manage the inheritance. For the benefit of the heirs and heirs. Without the consent of the heirs. Because the authority and responsibility of the trustee to the successor by the chapter. Act of Law The provisions of Law no. 6 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions of law.

The first defendant as a trustee transferred some of the inheritance of private property to themselves. As a spouse's legal successor to MPs and to the second defendant, who is the estate of T., the heirs of another MP, this action is not antagonistic to the inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 1722

The first defendant as the estate of the MPs do not transfer land disputes to other heirs of the MPs, including the five plaintiffs, it is between the defendants as the estate manager of the MPs and plaintiffs. That would be the same. Thus, the defendant as the estate of the transfer of land disputes to the second defendant as a successor of T estate of the MPs, so it is in accordance with the authority of the estate must be done. Self-employment under Section 1719 and Section 1723

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6383/2551.

Both plaintiffs filed for the three defendants to share the estate. Both the plaintiff and the three defendants agreed to share the estate and take possession. Take a break. Division of inheritance is complete under Section 1750 paragraph one, so the defendant has no right to claim the land to be wrong to share it, then find it. And no right to interfere with the land, neither the right to raise the age of inheritance is a fight. The end of the heirs in the disputed land. Is not a person under Section 1754

Legitimacy court has ordered such a case. Representatives of both plaintiffs who are descendants may raise the age of 1 year under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754 to fight the plaintiffs, both heirs.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3705/2551.

Creditors have the right to pay their debts from the property of the debtor until the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 214 when the debtors died. The plaintiff will have the right to call the defendant as the heirs of the e. Pay debts from property in the estate of the e. The plaintiff has the right to remove the property under the mortgage under Section 1754, paragraph two and Section 192/27, but it is only possible to enforce the mortgage. Can not enforce any property in the estate. Even a mortgage agreement will have an agreement to the end of the mortgage agreement, the creditor has the right to seize. Other assets of the debtor to repay the debt if the mortgage is not enough to repay the debt because the debt, which is the president's debt. Other property in the estate will no longer fall into civil liability.

Under the loan agreement, the borrower must arrange for mortgage insurance by the borrower. The borrower is a beneficiary. In case the borrower does not arrange the insurance, but the lender is the insurance agent instead of the borrower, the borrower agrees to pay the fee and reimbursement to the lender. Settle the loan agreement. Must pay the premium that the lender has paid instead. But the plaintiff sued the debt after the filing date. The debt is not yet due for debt in the future, and will be considered to have failed to repay their debts. Therefore, there is no dispute about the rights or obligations of the plaintiff and the defendant in the law to the defendant as the heirs of the debt of the debt.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1223/2551.

Major General did not sign the testimony in the military testimony, the issue is only Colonel K. witnessed only one. Waiver of military disputed by the Civil Code, Section 1656, paragraph one is void under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1705, the third defendant can not rely on military will. Any rights

All will be written as a will. Wills written in the body of the handwriting. Have a deadline for your property. The text in handwritten messages must be readable enough to understand that the person. The will to inherit the estate. The military testimony of the disputed version is a testament to military service. The death certificate of the testator is complete. The space will be provided to the testator, but only the place and date of the year. Wills with the name of the testator. The testamentary and the will of the testator. If the text is cut out to the left only the text that generals. The testamentary man writing it is not meant as a will. The doctrine of the military disputed is not a will.

The provisions of Section 1754, the third defendant raised the claim is the age of the right to claim the property that they have. The right to receive as a heir or recipient.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7552/2550.

The driver of the plaintiff's employer, the car collision of the insurance company to insure the company was damaged by the death of the plaintiff, the plaintiff knows the amount of compensation under the Supreme Court ruling that the plaintiff to pay to the defendant. And the company and the plaintiff has already paid. The plaintiff will be entitled to compensation from the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 426, so it was born on the plaintiff paid.

The claim for compensation under Section 426 of the law does not prescribe the age of any other 10-year-old under Section 193/30, the age under Section 1754 paragraph four, which is the age of the claim creditor. The inheritance applies. The prosecution for the three defendants, the lawyer of the plaintiff can not be liable when the plaintiff sued the three defendants have not survived 10 years from the date the plaintiff claims to the plaintiff (the date the plaintiff paid) The plaintiff sued not to terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4116/2550.

The four plaintiffs sued the defendant, the estate's manager, according to the court order, claiming that the defendant handled the inheritance by legacy accounting and legacy division. It is a case of inheritance management. The age requirement of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1733, paragraph two, when the inheritance of the defendant must be distributed to heirs and management of the inheritance has not ended, so it does not start counting the law. And by reason of the defendant's inheritance, he is liable to the heirs under Section 1720 in the manner of representation as provided in Section 809 to 812, 819 and Section 823 of the defendant possession of land, which has half a legacy. Hold it as a replacement for the heirs. The defendant will can not raise the age under Section 1754 to fight his heirs.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 460/2550.

The plaintiff sued this case more than one year from the date the plaintiff knew or should have known the death of the brigade debt to the debt of the President of the debt. Since this loan agreement is registered mortgage land as follows: Even debt under the loan agreement, the president will terminate. The plaintiff has the right to enforce the mortgage of property under Section 1754, paragraph three, with Section 193/27, but only mortgage assets. It may also enforce other properties of the inheritance. Even a land mortgage contract is insured and the contract is terminated. Insurance will be labeled. At the time of the mortgage, take the mortgage, sold the net amount less. The amount owed to the equipment. How much money is lacking? Mortgages and debtors are responsible for the lack of money. To the mortgagee until the full amount.

Even the plaintiff is a commercial bank is entitled to charge interest from customers at the highest rate. Notification of the Bank of Thailand and the Commercial Banking Act, Section 14 of the said Notification that the law is a matter that the court will recognize itself. It is a fact that the couple has a duty to detect. And when the Court of First Instance ordered that the documents on the interest rate plaintiff. The defendant is a document to be obeyed by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 90. The plaintiff did not appeal the order of the Court of First Instance, so it is considered that. The plaintiff has no evidence that. The plaintiff has the right to charge interest at the normal rate as provided by law. Interest agreement is void. The plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per year during the default under Section 224

Judgment of the Supreme Court 244/2550.

Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph three, the age of the claim of creditors towards the estate. When the plaintiff is a creditor in the letter of credit agreement and Trust receipt claims. The inheritance is liable as a guarantor under trust receipts to the plaintiff. The case is governed by the provisions of Section 1754, paragraph three.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5634/2549.

The prosecution of inheritance as provided in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754 refers to the case where the heirs of the right of inheritance together dispute with the right to call. Divide in share of inheritance

The plaintiff sued the plaintiff is a wife and a manager of the estate, which has the title of a custodian with the defendant in the land and has requested to force. Defendants divide the land to the plaintiff half of the west as the m. Defendant that the land of the m to the defendant and the defendant possession of land in the land to be held until the right to possession. This is a fight that is not the total owner. The defendant will have the plaintiff with no child together and the defendant is the same father and mother to raise a claim to support that the m to the defendant only. The defendant did not say that the defendant is a heir of the inheritance of one, so it is not the plaintiff and the defendant disputed with the claim on the share of inheritance, but disputed the total ownership of the plaintiff as a resident. Why? Property with no age. The age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754 may not apply.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4095/2549.

Section 1754 of the first paragraph states that "no lawsuit will be filed after one year. But when the inheritance dies ... "The term inheritance under the provisions means that. Disputes between heirs who have the right to property together with the right. Therefore, the second defendant, the wife of his heirs is the defendant, he is not the heirs of the property of the plaintiff and the plaintiff as the estate manager of this case to retrieve the land certificates from the defendant. Second to To share the heir of the case is not a claim on the estate, the defendant can not raise the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph one to claim.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3796/2549.

The competent authority of the plaintiff has examined and acknowledged the death of A. in November 2001 and the plaintiff by the Deputy Director-General 1, acting on behalf of the plaintiff's plaintiff's death on 11 February 2002. On 11 February 2002. The three plaintiffs filed the case on September 26, 2002, not yet than one year from the date of the plaintiff's death. The plaintiff sued the three are in the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754. the three

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2434/2549.

The plaintiff is the son of the heirs who are entitled to inherit the land disputes of the Prof. When the plaintiff asked the defendant to separate land disputes to the plaintiff. But the defendant ignored. The defendant argued the plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff sued.

Even the defendant is the only land dispute. However, when the defendant with the owner of the property in the disputed property is still in possession of half the land dispute and when the defendant did not do anything that indicates that the defendant has changed the nature of land confiscation dispute. The defendant possesses and benefits in disputed land, so it is occupied instead of the owner of the property.

The plaintiff is the son of the deceased, so he is a heir apparent in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1629 (1) is entitled to the inheritance of the defendant is only the same brothers and sisters in the same order as the successor in the next. There is no right to inheritance of Prof. Section 1630 paragraph one when the defendant is not the heir who has the right to this estate. And the plaintiff sued this case to retrieve the inheritance from the defendant occupier. The case is not a claim on the estate. The defendant can not extend the inheritance of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph one to cut the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued not to terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5670/2548.

In addition to the plaintiff sued to revoke the sale of land disputes between the defendant and the defendant, claiming that it is a covert fraud to prevent the plaintiff to transfer the land. Disputes under the contract will be sold by the suit. The plaintiff also filed a lawsuit against the defendant, the heirs of the estate to comply with the agreement to buy and sell the property was made with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a creditors claim to the estate, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph three shall not be liable to the lawsuit upon the expiration of one year from when the creditor knows or should know the death of. Inheritance When the plaintiff, the creditor, has sued this case after learning of the death. The inheritance of the plaintiff for more than a year.

Even the defendant will miss the appointment and the absence of appointment. But when the defendant, the descendant of the estate transferred the land dispute to the second defendant held that the defendant is a person who would like to exercise the rights of the heirs, so the defendant has the right to raise the age to fight with. The plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5670/2548.

The plaintiff sued the defendant as a descendant of the estate to comply with the contract to buy and sell to the plaintiff to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a creditor claiming the inheritance under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1755, paragraph three is one year when the plaintiff sued the case after knowing the death of MP for more than a year, even the defendant. 1, the successor of the defendant failed to file a statement, but the defendant 2 is the transfer of land disputes from the defendant, it can be regarded as a person who likes to exercise his rights. So it is possible to raise the age of one year to fight under Section 1755, the plaintiff sued.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3720/2548.

The plaintiff disputed land and buildings during the marriage. Dispute is the property of the plaintiff and B is entitled to one half. When it does not appear that the plaintiff consented to b. Therefore, no right to make the will to raise property dispute over their own to the two defendants.

When the plaintiff sued the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to divide the property is not a legacy is not in the age of 1 year under Section 1754

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3568/2548.

The estate manager of the transfer of land disputes, which is a property to the first defendant, who is not a descendant who died without compensation and dishonesty, then the defendant is registered transfer to the second defendant by the plaintiff's successor. The deceased has the power to sue the transfer of the act as Section 1300.

Defendant 1 and 2 are not the heirs of the deceased, so it may not be applicable to Section 1754 of this case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8430/2547.

The case of Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph three, shall not be liable to the creditor upon expiration of one year from the date the creditor knows or should know the death of the inheritance. Means that the creditor has known that he has a claim to the estate. Creditors are required to file a lawsuit within 1 year from when the creditor knows or should know the death of the inheritance. If the creditor does not yet know that he has a claim to the estate while the creditor. I know or should know the death of the inheritance, 1 year is not started. The Office of the NCC informed the plaintiff that the death. And according to the expression of the investigation sent along with the book, his death certificate as evidence. It was heard that only the plaintiff knew of the death of the Crown Property since 1992, but the plaintiff is not aware that any person will be liable to civil liability to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not know what to prosecute any person. It is not the age of 1 year under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph three, when the plaintiff has appointed a committee to investigate civil and civil liability. The investigator then proposed that any person be liable to civil liability to the plaintiff by proposing a hierarchical opinion to the Deputy Director-General of the Department of Justice acting the Director General. The plaintiff informed the plaintiff on February 1, 2538 that the plaintiff would be entitled to claim compensation and began to count the age of 1 year under Section 1754, paragraph three from that date. The plaintiff sued the case on January 26, 2539 has not yet passed a year, the claim of the plaintiff does not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7499/2547.

The plaintiff sued the defendant 2 as the descendant of the Lieutenant. Liability under the guarantee agreement of the Lieutenant Colonel guarantees the loan of the plaintiff to the plaintiff when the liability of the guarantor is bound to the creditor. The guarantor is liable only when the debtor does not pay the debt. The guarantor will be released from liability while the debt of the debtor suspended. For any reason, under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 680 and Section 698 liability of the guarantor in the debt to be paid to the creditor with the debt to the debtor. Must pay As a result of the same case, it is a debt that is not separated when the defendant, as the heirs of the lender, the borrower raised the age of the claim of the plaintiff, the creditor to the inheritance. Section 1754, paragraph three as a fight. And it appears that the claim of the plaintiff to the Millennium Estate is overdue and the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff sued. Section 59 (1) when the plaintiff's claim for the defendant's liability to terminate the court will have the effect of the liability of the defendant, the absence of appointment, which will be. To be liable as the heirs of the Lieutenant Colonel, the guarantor of the plaintiff's debt to the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff brought a lawsuit to the defendant after the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff has learned of the death of Lieutenant Colonel when it is not over a year, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1755, paragraph three.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6734/2547.

The plaintiff and b. The contract for the purchase of land disputes by the plaintiff to pay the full price. Part B has delivered the land dispute to the plaintiff. The land was not transferred to the plaintiff. Such debt is a benefit to the plaintiff's property. Until the transfer registration. The plaintiff is entitled to the land dispute as defined in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 241 even if the plaintiff's case is terminated under Section 1755, paragraph three, but under Section 1755, paragraph three also provided under the jurisdiction. Section 193/27, the right to leave the land until the two defendants, his successor to register the transfer of land disputes to the plaintiff. Both have the right to sue the two defendants registered transfer of land disputes to the plaintiff when the Court of First Instance to determine the age of inheritance of the two defendants to fight under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1754, paragraph three, both in the plaintiff's appeals. Appeal about the age and claimed that the right to seize under Section 241, the Court of Appeal 3 also ruled on the age of inheritance under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1. Section 753, third paragraph, Section 193/27, and Section 241, as well as the age of inheritance as agreed by the couple. It is not the case that the Court of Appeal 3 judgment is beyond the appeal of the plaintiff.

Posted in: