The prescription

Section 193/30 of that age, if this Code or other laws do not specifically provide. Let's have ten years.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 892/2560.

Compensation and pay instead of advance notice is the money an employer must pay to an employee for a termination of employment under normal circumstances. The Labor Protection Act BE 2541, which is a different case, with the consideration of unfair practices. Workers compensation and pay instead of advance notice. There is no law to wait for the results of the diagnosis of unfair practices. When the plaintiff sued for compensation and compensation instead of advance notice, which The Labor Protection Act, BE 2541, Section 5 states that "compensation means the money paid by an employer to an employee when terminated. In addition to other types of money paid by the employer to the employee. If the employer does not notify the termination of employment contract for the period prescribed by law. The Labor Protection Act, BE 2541, Section 17 and Section 582, Section 2, as the case may be, the plaintiff's age, so it must start from October 20, 2004, the date of termination, which is. The date the plaintiff may enforce claims on. When the plaintiff filed this case on December 11, 2014, it exceeds ten years under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8683/2559.

The four plaintiffs complained that the three defendants, who are employers, do not comply with the law on the safety of the work of the employee is the cause of death. The four plaintiffs have been damaged, the three defendants are liable for both the violation and the grounds of the offense. It is not the case that the three defendants are liable for the infringement only. In violation of the contract of employment, there is no law on age, especially the 10-year age limit under Section 193/30, the deadline to leave the job on August 1, 2009, the last day the defendant. 3, an employer who fails to comply with the duty to arrange the workplace in accordance with the law. On July 22, 2011, four plaintiffs sued the plaintiff for breach of labor contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6914/2559.

When the defendant driving a car that the plaintiff insured with the consent of the insured while drunk. And then the car accident that the driver was damaged. As a defendant, the insured caused damage to the property of third parties. According to the insurance policy, the protection of third party liability Article 8 requires the plaintiff as the recipient of the liability to third parties without the possibility of exclusion of the exclusion of the protection of driving cases by persons who have not had alcohol in the drive. More than 150 mg. To refuse the indemnity And when the plaintiff indemnified the claim. I have the right to call the defendant to pay the plaintiff to pay back to the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the policy. Section 8, Clause 3, Third Party Liability. In such case, the insurer shall indemnify the insured party from reimbursement under the insurance contract. Unlike the claim for compensation under Section 882 paragraph one and the absence of specific law provisions. So it is 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 when the plaintiff sued the case within 10 years from the date the plaintiff indemnified the plaintiff to the third party. Plaintiff's case is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5836/2559.

The plaintiff's complaint to the defendant to recover two cases, including the lawsuit for lack of price due to the hire-purchase of the car hire. But not worth the price. To file a lawsuit against the defendant, the defendant used a car hire purchase all the time until the date of the lease. This is a case where there is no specific law on age. The provisions of the age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, shall apply when Section 193/12 of the age of consent, but may be enforceable. This case refers to the date when the lease is terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2122/2559.

Get motorcycle insurance with the plaintiff. It is insured. Section 7 obliges car owners who use cars or cars to use to provide insurance for the victims. If the damage to the victims of the car that the plaintiff insured. The plaintiff must pay the victim to the initial completion within 7 days from the receipt of the request without waiting for proof of the offense as provided in Section 20 and 25 when the victim was paid to the victim. How much The plaintiff has the right to recourse to the third party who caused damage under Section 31, which is the right to occur by the law. It is not the plaintiff's rights to the plaintiff sued the plaintiff sued the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not take the plaintiff to be entitled to the plaintiff under Section 880 because the victims are not insured by the original Act. Protection of car accident victims, 1992, Section 31, Second paragraph, as amended by Section 12 of the Act on the Protection of the Victims of Motor Vehicles, BE 2535 (No.3), BE 2540 (1997). Act In the first year after realizing. Those who are liable However, it must not exceed 5 years from the date of payment of compensation to the victims, but later the Act on the Protection of the Victims of Car 1992 (No. 4) BE. 2007, Section 11, which is in force at the time of the accident. Paragraph two of Section 31 of the Motor Vehicle Accident Act, BE 2535 as amended by The Act on the Protection of Motor Vehicle Accidents (No. 3), BE 2540 (1997), without any amendment, shall be replaced with the following:

There is no law specifically regulating the age of recruitment. It must be 10 years old, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, since the plaintiff paid the initial damage to the victims on November 6, 2009 until the plaintiff sued. It has not expired for 10 years, the claim of the plaintiff is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 649/2559.

The debt that the petitioner filed the petition in this case is owed under the loan agreement and the overdue loan agreement that the company made with the former creditor. Debtors 2 and 4 are the guarantors. Claims under the loan agreement and the overdraft loan law does not specify the age of 10 years, especially under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30. The loan agreement and the overdue loan defaulted on the date the creditor filed the lawsuit against the company. Other guarantors and debtors 2 and 4 are defendants at the Uttaradit. Black case no. 1123/2542 not more than 10 years not to terminate. The result of the lawsuit is that the debts of the debtors 2 and 4 to the creditors as a guarantor under Section 193/30 stumbled to stop under Section 193 / 14 (2) The period before the passage is not counted in age, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/15, paragraph one, must start counting the age of the new from the cause that the age of interruption has ended. According to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/15 paragraph two case of the Uttaradit Provincial Court. The court has ordered that the case be removed from the case file. Section 30 of the Thai Asset Management Corporation, The age has never stopped falling. The lawsuit for this case has to be counted from June 11, 2005, the claimant filed the case on December 30, 2009, not later than 10 years.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11269/2558.

The plaintiff sued the defendant 1 to the Central Labor Court is a lawsuit between the employer and the employee regarding the employment contract. The lawsuit is not a single violation. Because the plaintiff and the first defendant is an employer, employees are bound by the labor contract to each other. In addition, the defendant violated the plaintiff. It also violated the regulations on work, the violation of labor contracts. And according to the certificate and the guarantor Clause 2, it states that "If it appears that the defendant in the work to do any damage to the plaintiff, whether the damage is committed intentionally or negligently. there And pay damages to the plaintiff by the amount of damage. Including all damage. The plaintiff is responsible for the third party as the employer of the first defendant with no limit. And the defendant is a co-defendant ... "The defendant's obligations to the plaintiff is to defend the defendant's liability under the 1 contract with the labor. Claims for damages caused by breach of contract of labor have no legal age restrictions. So it is 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Section 193/30 violation between the defendant and the plaintiff under the employment contract on December 17, 2001, the defendant has paid the plaintiff a debt of 1,350 baht a month from the date. On December 15, 2003, to September 15, 2005, the repayment of debt has not expired since the 10-year term, thus causing the life of this part to stop and start counting again after the plaintiff's installment payment. Lastly, on September 15, 2005 both the plaintiff sued the two defendants to the defendant on September 6, 2007 has not passed 10 years from December 17, 2001. The plaintiff's case for the two defendants did not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10157/2558.

Defendant 1 is responsible for receiving money. Issue receipt Get paid Receipt number and amount in cash register Subsequently, the defendant misappropriated the rent of the plaintiff, the defendant is the second defendant, the third defendant is the fourth defendant property is the 5th defendant is the office of the defendant.

The plaintiff claims that the plaintiff hired a defendant from 2 to 5 to work and assigned to oversee the collection of money and property of the plaintiff, but abandoned as a result of the defendant to misappropriation of the plaintiff's money. The performance of the defendant 2 to 5 is severely impaired and negligence in accordance with the rules of the plaintiff, which is the condition of employment under the contract to hire a defendant 2 to 5, it is obliged to pay damages to the plaintiff under the contract as a contract. The supervisor of the defendant is a lawsuit against the defendant 2 to 5, both the infringement and the contract. There is no law on the age of the contract specifically for the 10 years under Section 193/30, the defendant misappropriated the money in August 1999. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on June 27, 2007 plaintiff sued. The breach of labor contract does not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10010/2558.

The plaintiff sued. The plaintiff is guaranteed all types of risks from the company and A. Company has agreed to hire the defendant to maintain security in the property of the company. A copy of the security contract at the end of the complaint. From July 25 to July 28, 2003, the villains entered the building and threw a total amount of Baht 152,166.32 in the company. The security guard was an employee of the defendant who did not exercise caution. Not supervised by duty. The plaintiff as the insurer has paid to the company to 147,166.32 baht to get the right to claim damages from the defendant as the plaintiff's indictment is an indictment of the state of the charges and claims about the claim caused by the violation. And the right to claim under the security contract is included. Even if the right to demand is violated, it will expire. But the right to a security contract, the plaintiff has no right to the law of age. So it is 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30. This case occurred between 25 to 28 July 2003, the plaintiff sued the case filed on July 8, 2008, the plaintiff sued in this section is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9996/2558.

The defendants 1, 3, 5 and 6, the defendant appealed to the plaintiffs to return the insurance because the concession ends. It is not the pursuit of the property of the person who has no right to be held under Section 1336, but the claim as provided in the concession agreement. In this case there is no specific age law. So it is ten years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, but the defendants 1, 3, 5 and 6 defendants claim back the deposit for more than ten years from the date of enforceability claims. Section 193/12 of the defendant's defendants 1, 3, 5 and 6, thus terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9468/2558.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, the employee liable damages to the plaintiff. The employer is responsible for the wrongful acts. Violates the plaintiff's order To approve loans to overdue debtors over fraud. The plaintiff was damaged. The plaintiff sued the defendant liable for the violation of the 1 year since the date of the damage to know the breach and know the person to use the compensation or after 10 years from the date of violation. Section 448, paragraph one, and the base of duty under labor contract. The right to demand under the contract of employment is not age specific, so it is 10 years under Section 193/30, with age starting from the time when the claim may be enforced on the basis of Section 193/12.

The fact is that the defendant violated the plaintiff and the offense of labor contract between June 7, 1991 to January 13, 1995, the date of filing 1 February 2011 more than 10 years, then the plaintiff sued the lack of age. Violation and age-based breach of employment contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8755/2558.

When the lease termination. The hire may force the defendant to hire a hire purchase car for the lack or lack of money from the date of termination of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/12, which may be enforceable by the right. Call it It is not the date of auction at the hire car. When the lease agreement was terminated on November 6, 1996, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on January 12, 2007 suing the plaintiff in respect of the price of the lack of a 10-year term under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8546/2558.

Section 193/34 states that "the following claims shall be valid for a period of two (2) years. Handicraft operator Industry Entrepreneurs Or craftsman Get the value of the delivery. Work done Or the value of the business of others. Including money to advance. And Section 193/33 states that "the following claims shall be valid for a term of five (5) claims under section 193/34 (1) ( 2) and (5) are not in force for two years. " In addition to being a business trader by the purchase of goods. They also have to be businessmen, who are usually engaged in business for profit. The plaintiff is a state organization established under The establishment of a government organization in 1953 and the establishment of a warehouse organization in 1955 with the purpose of doing business on agricultural products, etc. The sale of paddy between the plaintiff and The defendant was the first pledge of paddy rice production year 2005/2006 of the government in those days. The purpose is to help low-income farmers pledge rice at high prices. Not being exploited by middlemen. One way to do this is to reduce the burden of maintenance of the paddy of the plaintiff, which is deposited in the warehouse of the defendant, which participated in the pledging project of rice paddy production year 2005/2006, the defendant can be. Selling paddy to go. Therefore, the plaintiff's sale of the plaintiff to the defendant did not seek profit to get into the state. The plaintiff is not a trader to bring the age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (5) shall apply when the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is not the law of age. hold The age of 10 years, which is the age of generality under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 shall apply.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4373/2558.

Section 5, paragraph one, provides that the injured person in violation of the official authority of the state in the practice of duty. Claims from the state agency directly. But do not claim compensation from the authorities. The fact is that the defendant committed a violation while serving the second defendant liability to the plaintiff in the result of the violation that the defendant has done in the performance of duties. Act of Liability for the violation of section 2539, Section 5, paragraph one, the provision of which provides that the defendant is liable with the defendant, the first offender, such as the employer and the employee. Can not determine the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one, but it follows. The liability of officials in violation of the Act of 1996 did not specify the age of the lawsuit. The age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 shall apply to this case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4237/2558.

The plaintiff sued. The ammunition that was purchased from the defendant at the wrong size was not the cause of the damage to the gun. The plaintiff has a written notice to the defendant to proceed with the amendment of the contract, but the defendant is not the first defendant is a contract violation. The lawsuit to enforce the breach of contract. To be liable for defects that must be filed within one year from the time of the defect, according to Section 474.

The lawsuit for breach of contract is not legal age, especially the age of 10 years under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2208/2558.

Use of claims or lawsuits regarding guarantees. The Civil and Commercial Code has no specific age, so it must be 10 years of age under Section 193/30. Claims under the Guarantee Agreement must be made within 15 days from the end of the contract. The text can be considered as an age agreement under Section 193/11, contrary to the law relating to public order. Void under Section 150

Judgment of the Supreme Court 16994/2557.

The premium is the amount that the plaintiff advances under the lease. The agent called for the advance payment to recover from the There is no law on age. The age of 10 years under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15204/2557.

The court sentenced the plaintiff and the plaintiff to share the compensation together with the costs of the victims. According to the lawsuit, the case is finally over. When the plaintiff used the money to the victim to the judgment. The creditor's right to recourse to the defendant 1 to 8 as the descendant of the successor of the inheritance under the contract of carriage under Section 229 (3), not the plaintiff sued the right. Claims on the inheritance. Because the claim of the plaintiff after the death of the inheritance. The provisions of Section 1754, paragraph three shall not apply. This claim does not have a law. Must be considered to be ten years under Section 193/30, when the plaintiff's recourse has been made since the date the plaintiff has paid claims. Counting the age, so it must start from the moment that may force the claim under Section 193/12, which is the date the plaintiff has paid the debt to the victim according to the verdict of the Court.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14700/2557.

The plaintiff sued the defendant that the 1st to 8th and the dead. And as a lawful husband of the defendant, 9 is the lawful father of the 10 and 11 defendants have denied jointly to occupy the property to build the forest cut by cutting the teeth, sucking timber in the forest. national park Karasin Province Which is the state As dangerous And to deteriorate the wood in the National Park by illegal. And share the possession of the forest. The planted area in this area is a total of 1,330 rai that the plaintiff sued. Calling the defendant jointly liable for damages to the plaintiff, which is a state agency under the National Environmental Quality Promotion Act 1992, Section 97, which states that. "Any person who commits or refuses to do anything unlawfully. Destroy Or lost Or damage to natural resources, which is the state or public domain. It is the responsibility of the state to pay compensation to the state according to the total value of the lost, damaged or damaged natural resources. " The plaintiff sued the defendant jointly liable for damages to the plaintiff in violation of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 420 is not subject to the age of 1 year under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448 when no law. Specific age Claims under the plaintiff's indemnity is in force of 10 years, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13273/2557.

E. Death The plaintiff and the defendant as a contractor is bound to comply with the memorandum. The defendant transferred the land title deed No. 1407 is solely to violate the memorandum. Both plaintiffs sued this case is a lawsuit to comply with the memorandum is not a case of inheritance. Defendant can not raise the age of 1 year under Section 1754 of the lawsuit because the plaintiff did not sue the defendant as a defendant as the descendant of the e. But the lawsuit to comply with the memorandum. There is no specific law on age. Claims of the plaintiff's indemnity is 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 12686/2557.

The provisions of the age of violation of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one shall apply in the case where the victim sued the offender or the partner responsible for the offender, such as the employer must share the liability of the employee for the violation of which the employee has done. In the hiring official. But this case, the third defendant as a government agency is liable to both plaintiffs in violation of the land officials in Lamphun Banthong province. The third defendant has violated the plaintiffs. In this case, both plaintiffs will sue the defendant's third defendant, not under the act of violation of the officer, 1996, Section 5, paragraph one. The third defendant's liability such as this is not liable in the capacity. Violators or co-owners of the offender. Can not apply the age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one shall apply and the liability of the officer in violation of the 1996 Act does not prescribe the liability of the unit. Article 5, paragraph one, in particular, the age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 shall apply to this case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11571/2557.

The defendant with the former creditors Securities Company entered into the memorandum of amendment of the loan agreement for the purchase of securities. Claims to continue shall be subject to such memorandum, which is not specifically provided for by law. The age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30.

Section 193/31 The claim of a State to charge a taxable person for ten years The claim of the State to claim other debt shall be governed by the provisions of this nature.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 12847/2557.

Both defendants pay taxes to the plaintiff. Later, the tax refund claiming that overpaid. Because the warrants to buy shares, the company is not considered to be assessed that the defendant will pay tax. This is the case where the two defendants cited legal grounds for tax refund. And the assessment officer of the plaintiff considered that. Both defendants are entitled to a tax return. This tax return is not a tax refund without the right to claim the law. Will be considered as a good fortune under Section 406, paragraph one. Warrants to purchase shares are taxable income subject to tax assessment. The defendant informed the two tax returns to the plaintiff. When the two defendants refused to return. It is the plaintiff's claim to the state to call for a tax on the age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/31 is not a right to claim a return to the age of 1 year, Section 419

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3983/2553.

The plaintiff returned the tax to the defendant by the taxpayer, the defendant has a tax return to claim the law, so I do not use the age of 1 year, but the age of 10 years under Section 193/31 plaintiff's case. Expire

Section 193/32 of the Claims made by the Court of Appeal Or by a compromise agreement. The age of ten years, regardless of whether the original claim will be age.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1815/2559.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for bankruptcy by the debt of the judgment of the Ubon Ratchathani Provincial Court. Civil case number red 1526/2544, which is a claim made by the verdict of the court of last resort with the age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/32, but because of Civil Code Section 147 The second paragraph provides for a judgment or order which may appeal the petition or have reconsideration requests. If you do not appeal the petition or request a new trial within a specified time. It is considered to be the end since such a period has ended. When the civil case, the court issued a verdict to the plaintiff to win the case, because the defendant lacked the appointment of the defendant filed a civil suit. Section 198 bis. In this case, the defendant, the court has a verdict or decree to lose the case by appointment. Filing And not appeal the judgment or order. The right to request a new reconsideration by filing an application to the court within 15 days from the date of the submission of the sentence or order to the defendant, the absence of appointment to file a statement. However, if the court has set out any requirements to send such a regulation by means of ordinary or otherwise. Must comply with the provisions as prescribed in the Civil Code Section 199 ter and Section 199 quarter paragraph, but the case after the court did not issue a ruling. The court issued a regulation on February 21, 2003, and sent the defendant a written notice of the same day. The submission of the notice by the closing of the notice is effective on the 15-day period has passed. According to the Civil Code Section 79 paragraph two, it must be considered that the submission of the declaration by the effect of the announcement effective March 8. 2003 defendant has the right to submit a request for reconsideration by March 23, 2003. The defendant's case is the most since the day following March 23, 2003, the plaintiff sued the defendant for bankruptcy of this case on. At July 27, 2555, it has not yet passed the age of 10 years from the date of judgment to the civil suit. The case is not terminated. The plaintiff sued the defendant to bankruptcy.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1336/2556.

Debt settlement under the judgment of the defendant is a bankruptcy case is the use of the right arising from the compromise agreement, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/32, the age of 10 years to count it. Section 193/12 The age of initiation is optional, but may be enforced. This case was a court judgment on July 6, 2542 that the defendant to pay installments for the first installment to the 12th installment payment of not less than 20,000 baht, starting with the first payment on July 30, 2542, it appears that the defendant. Since the first repayment of this debt, the commencement date is from July 31, 1999, but the deceased. It appears that the defendant has paid debt to the plaintiff several times. The last time the debt was paid to the plaintiff on May 16, 2002, so that the defendant to pay the plaintiff some will have the effect of stumbling down in accordance with Section 193/14 (1) when. The stumbling stops, the period of time passed before it is not counted in the age according to Section 193/15, the plaintiff brought the ground under the verdict, the defendant sued the two were bankrupt on 13 August. The 2552 has not yet passed the age under Section 193/32 plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a debt not to sue the two defendants had a bankruptcy case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14086/2555.

The plaintiff sued the defendant is a criminal offense under Section 326 and the Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant. The case has been resolved before this lawsuit, which is a civil suit to claim damages in the violation of the penalty of the punishments mentioned above, the age of this lawsuit is in force. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph two that the right to claim damages in the offense is punishable by criminal law. It has a longer criminal life than the above mentioned. You have to take longer to enforce. Therefore, this case is 10 years from the date of the criminal case that the plaintiff sued the defendant to the maximum under Section 193/32 and P. 51 paragraph three.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7919/2551.

Letter of credit debt 6, because the defendant did not perform the debt settlement under the terms of the letter of debt. Document 5, until the plaintiff has to prosecute the criminal to pay the check, but the bank. Denial of payment When the three defendants made a letter of debt to the plaintiff. 6 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff sued or withdraw the complaint in the criminal case. The plaintiff also reduced the amount of debt. According to the letter of debt to the defendant, the defendant, the three and T. and the payment as detailed in the letter of debt repayment document 6, as follows: Although the document is 6, the word " "When the terms and the reason for the plaintiff and the plaintiffs to settle the dispute, the dispute arising from the letter of debt repayment letter to the letter 5 to complete with the leniency. Document 6 is a compromise agreement under Section 850 of the three defendants, the last payment on September 3, 1997, the age of the plaintiff to enforce the claim is therefore ten years. The date of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/32, the plaintiff filed the case on December 27, 2002. The plaintiff's case does not terminate.

Section 193/33 of the following claims shall be of five years' duration.

(1) interest payable

(2) The amount of money to be repaid in installments.

(3) rental fee Unless the rent of movable property under Section 193/34 (6)

(4) Accrued income is the salary, annuity, pension, parenting allowance, and other payments in the same manner as the payment is made for a period of time.

(5) Claims under Section 193/34 (1) (2) and (5), which are not in force for two years.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3358/2560.

Defendant claims that the plaintiff sued the last pay and the additional wage of the defendant, the first term of 2 years under Section 193/34 (1), so the determination of the age of the defendant. The plaintiff. The court must consider all the provisions of the law. At the end of Section 193/34 (1), there is an exception. Except for the claims made to work for the business of the debtor. The age of 5 years under Section 193/33 (5) The court has the power to determine. Debt payment in this part of the plaintiff is based on the principle of 2 years or the exception to 5 years, although the plaintiff just raised the claim in the appeal. It is not a matter that is not raised by the Court of First Instance as the defendant claims.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7804/2559.

Section 193/27 and Section 745 of the law provides that the mortgagee has the right to enforce the mortgage. Even if the claim to the president is terminated. But to exercise the right to pay interest overdue back over 5 years and not. Section 193/33 provides that the claim for interest arrears is five years, so it appears that the interest paid to the plaintiff. Place with the principal at the office. The interest on the outstanding mortgage for a period of 5 years equals the claim of the mortgagor is legally. The defendant, the mortgagee, who has the same rights as the mortgagee. To claim interest on excess of this time is not possible. And the plaintiff as the debtor will be released from the debt under Section 331.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6119/2559.

Claims for debt repayments in installments. It happens from default. The lawsuit against the amount of arrears must be enforced under Section 193/33 (2) of the Civil and Commercial Code, with a five-year term, not ten years, starting from July 16, 2005. The date the applicant filed for mortgage payment to the court on August 27, 2013, so over five years. When the debt is due to the case with Section 745 of the Civil Code, which provides the right to the creditor, the mortgage can be enforced against the mortgaged property, even if the debt is terminated. However, it will not be possible to take over overdue interest on mortgages for more than five years. The interest for more than five years, the mortgage is not liable. It obliges the debtor who is the mortgagor to pay interest beyond the legal limit. Concerning the public order of the people to the court to lift the diagnosis of the Civil Code Section 142 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2769/2559.

Accrued interest receivable under long-term loan agreement and short-term loan agreement by issuing promissory note. The creditors appeal. The interest is not terminated because creditors filed for repayment within the deadline. Bankruptcy Act, 1940, Section 90/15, it is considered that the debt accrued interest payable by the creditor. The debt is due to claim for interest arrears between August 20, 1997 to December 27, 1998 is the age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (1), which expires between August 20, 2002 to December 27, 2003. In the case before the Central Bankruptcy Court ordered the cancellation of the rehabilitation order of the debtor on August 15, 2003, As a result, all outstanding receivables have not yet expired, until one year has elapsed since the court ordered the cancellation of the rehabilitation order. Bankruptcy Act, 1940, Section 90/15, the maturity date of interest is due on August 15, 2004. The creditor filed a request for repayment on May 27, 2004 has not expired. Accrued interest receivable under long-term loan agreement and short-term loan agreement by issuing promissory note is not terminated. Creditors are entitled to receive such interest.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13068/2558.

Expenditure items 5 to 10, as described in documents 1, 5 and 6, are expenses where necessary for the maintenance of common property and for the safety of the residents who do not. Pay for a period of 5 years, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (4) is not terminated.

The fines in item 3 and 4 are fines due to the default payment of central expenses. Can be considered as part of the central cost. When the central expenses of the President's debt expire The penalty for the equipment is due to expire in accordance with Section 193/26.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3104/2558.

The claim for interest arrears will be 5 years, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (1), but it appears that the creditor has sued the first class debt to repay the principal and interest arrears. The age of stumbling stopped in accordance with Section 193/14 (2) When the age of stumble stopped. The previous period is not counted in the age according to Section 193/15, paragraph two, where the age of interruption ceases to be a penalty for the debtor. It is against the debtor 4, which is the guarantor under Section 692, it appears that the case of creditors suing early debtors to repay. The Civil Court reads the judgment of the Court of Appeal on August 22, 2004, without the petition. The case will be finalized on September 22, 2004, which causes the stumbling block to stop at the end of the time, so it begins to count the new age for the debtor 4 from that time, under Section 193/15, paragraph two, the creditor submitted the request for payment. The debtors in the debt securities of the 4 debtors on June 21, 2007 have not yet expired. The 5-year claims on overdue interest. Loan agreement and overdraft. The debtor is guaranteed 4, so it is not expired. Creditors are entitled to interest payment. Is not entitled to receive interest paid after the date of the defendant decisively up to 5 years, however, the liability of the debtor 4 in the original interest and money is limited to no liability of the debtor to the creditors. The only civil case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 19692/2557.

The defendant engaged in industrial production and distribution of paper. The defendant purchased gas from the plaintiff to use for the production of electricity and heat in the factory of the defendant to produce paper, which is the business of the defendant. The plaintiff. The trader calls the value of the delivery to the defendant for the affairs of the defendant itself. Claims of the plaintiff in the defendant's arrears to the plaintiff. The age of 5 years under Section 193/33 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15064/2557.

Plaintiff is a construction contractor. And all kinds of construction. The defendant demanded that the defendant pay a portion of the contract arrears by the defendant, the contract for the plaintiff to hire a sprayer and paint sprayer and equipment to work for the defendant, which contracted the dam construction. The Lao People's Democratic Republic The wage paid to the defendant is payable to the plaintiff. Labor cost Equipment rental And the overtime pay of the plaintiff workers. It is considered that the plaintiff is an industrial operator. The claim to the defendant to use the value of work done. And the work was done for the affairs of the defendant in the case that it falls under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1) at the end. Except that it was done for the affairs of the debtor itself, so the age of the plaintiff's claim is 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (5) is not the age of 2 years, the plaintiff sued this case. Within 5 years from the date the claim may be enforced. The plaintiff sued not to terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9528/2557.

Central expenses that co-owners are required to pay to a condominium entity, even if the Condominium Act BE 2522 (1979) was made after the Civil and Commercial Code, and was intended to benefit the common owner. Condominium Act 1979 does not prescribe the age of the right to claim for such funds. Must comply with the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code when the defendant's obligation to pay monthly expenses. However, no payment is considered as accrued. The age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (4) has already provided. Adjustments and additional charges resulting from non-payment of central expenses owed to the equipment of central expenses, therefore, are 5 years old, as well as the president's debt. It is not a case that the Civil and Commercial Code or any other law does not prescribe the age to be 10 years, according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 is in any way.

In the claim to pay the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/9 that if not applicable within the time required by law. The claim is age. Forcing the creditor to claim rights within the time required by law. Because otherwise, the debtor will have the right to refuse the claim under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/10 and Section 193/29 that when not. Lifting up the fight. The court can not claim the age of dismissal. It does not mean that the creditors have to claim. The debtor has the right to refuse by raising the age of fighting only. If the debtor has filed a lawsuit to settle the debt, he will repay the creditor's right to the extent possible under the terms of the maturity date. It is equal to the repayment of the creditor's claim by raising the age of the fight.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11294/2013.

The plaintiff and the defendant as a farmer in accordance with the definition of Section 193/34 (2), but due to the nature of the transaction is the plaintiff, the creditor has delivered the source of rubber and materials. Defendant is a debtor. To the defendant to cultivate the rubber seedling bag and then sell it back to the plaintiff. By deducting the original price of rubber and the material received before the rubber tree seedling delivered. The rubber plantation that the defendant took from the plaintiff to the defendant and then brought back to the plaintiff to sell it to the business of the defendant, the debtor itself. The claim of the plaintiff does not fall into the force of two years, according to the law. However, it falls under the age of 5 years under Section 193/33 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8032/2056.

Defendant 1, the defendant hired the plaintiff to dismantle and add steel roof of the defendant's steel plant 1 by contracting wages per square meter. The plaintiff is supplying tools for working in the defendant's first luggage. The work of the plaintiff is a contract of construction of a type of work under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 587, even if the plaintiff's work to find a plaintiff is a craftsman under Section 193/34 (1) not liability. The employer is not in the age of 5 years under Section 193/33. (5) The plaintiff sued the employer for payment of wages, so he is a business to get the job to get the salary that will be from that. Requires claim within 2 years from the time the claim may be enforced pursuant to Section 193/34 (7)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 19744/2555.

Defendant 1 is a limited company. The purpose of purchasing, renting, leasing, holding, ownership, improvement, management, other property, including the fruit of the property, as well as the construction of commercial buildings, residential buildings, etc. The defendant purchased cement from. The plaintiff for a long period of time, and a large number of goods with the payment of the price. Show that the defendant brought the purchased goods to sell to other people. Including the construction of the building for the purpose of the defendant and the first defendant ordered cement from March to November 1997 for the construction of commercial buildings. The building of the defendant is used as an office in the management of trade in foreign trade. It is the business of the defendant, the debtors themselves. Exception at the end of Section 193/34 (1), so the plaintiff's claim to charge the goods from the defendant to the age of 5 years under Section 193/33 (5) Not 2 years old

Section 193/34 claims the following: The age is two years.

(1) trader or industry Handicraft operator Industrial Arts or Craftsmen Get the value of the delivery. Work done Or the value of the business of others. Including money to advance. Unless it is done for the affairs of the debtor itself.

(2) agricultural or forestry operators; The value of the delivered goods, agricultural or forestry products. Only in the home of the debtor itself.

(3) the passenger carrier or the goods or the messenger; The fare, the freight, the rent, the fee, including the advance.

(4) Hotel or dormitory operator. Businesses in the food and beverage. Or business operators in accordance with the law governing accommodation. Food or drink Service charge or work fee made to guests or service. Including money to advance.

(5) lottery or lottery lottery winners Call to sell the lottery. Unless it is for resale.

(6) businessmen in renting movable property Get rent

(7) Persons who do not belong to the categories specified in (1), but who are engaged in the business of other persons, or are engaged in various activities, shall be entitled to receive such remuneration. Including money to advance.

(8) Personnel employed for personal purposes. Get paid or other pay for the work done. Including money to advance. Or the employer called for a refund of such money that he had paid in advance.

(9) Employees, whether employed part time employee Or daily employee Including job seekers. Get paid or pay otherwise. Including money to advance. Or the employer called for a refund of such money that he had paid in advance.

(10) job trainers The cost of training and other expenses as agreed. Including money to advance.

(11) The owner of a school or sanatorium. Apply for tuition fees and other fees or medical expenses and other expenses. Including money to advance.

(12) Recipient for nurturing or training The value of the work, including the money to advance.

(13) animal feeder or trainer Get the job done. Including money to advance.

(14) teacher or teacher Call to teach

(15) Dentists, Nursing, Midwifery, Veterinary Practitioners Or other arts practitioners. The value of the work, including the money to advance.

(16) a lawyer or a legal professional. Including expert witness calls for work values. Including money to advance. Or a counterpart to the money that such as it was paid in advance.

(17) professional architectural engineer, auditor or other independent professional. Get the job done. Including money to advance. Or the employer to carry out such work to retrieve such money that he had paid in advance.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3358/2560.

Defendant claims that the plaintiff sued the last pay and the additional wage of the defendant, the first term of 2 years under Section 193/34 (1), so the determination of the age of the defendant. The plaintiff. The court must consider all the provisions of the law. At the end of Section 193/34 (1), there is an exception. Except for the claims made to work for the business of the debtor. The age of 5 years under Section 193/33 (5) The court has the power to determine. Debt payment in this part of the plaintiff is based on the principle of 2 years or the exception to 5 years, although the plaintiff just raised the claim in the appeal. It is not a matter that is not raised by the Court of First Instance as the defendant claims.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8546/2558.

Section 193/34 states that "the following claims shall be valid for a period of two (2) years. Handicraft operator Industry Entrepreneurs Or craftsman Get the value of the delivery. Work done Or the value of the business of others. Including money to advance. And Section 193/33 states that "the following claims shall be valid for a term of five (5) claims under section 193/34 (1) ( 2) and (5) are not in force for two years. " In addition to being a business trader by the purchase of goods. They also have to be businessmen, who are usually engaged in business for profit. The plaintiff is a state organization established under The establishment of a government organization in 1953 and the establishment of a warehouse organization in 1955 with the purpose of doing business on agricultural products, etc. The sale of paddy between the plaintiff and The defendant was the first pledge of paddy rice production year 2005/2006 of the government in those days. The purpose is to help low-income farmers pledge rice at high prices. Not being exploited by middlemen. One way to do this is to reduce the burden of maintenance of the paddy of the plaintiff, which is deposited in the warehouse of the defendant, which participated in the pledging project of rice paddy production year 2005/2006, the defendant can be. Selling paddy to go. Therefore, the plaintiff's sale of the plaintiff to the defendant did not seek profit to get into the state. The plaintiff is not a trader to bring the age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (5) shall apply when the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is not the law of age. hold The age of 10 years, which is the age of generality under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 shall apply.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2333/2558.

The plaintiff sued the plaintiff in the case of the plaintiff, the carrier demanded to remove air freight from the defendant employer. Although there is no law stipulating the age of the use of the right to claim air freight. But the service of the plaintiff is the delivery of goods for commercial purposes. The plaintiff is the carrier of the cargo called freight charges under Section 193/34 (3), which provides that. The claim is dated 2 years, so the claim of the plaintiff demanding that the defendant pay the air freight is subject to a two-year life in accordance with the law.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1211/2558.

Even a radio station, one of the plaintiffs. The business is broadcasting or broadcasting on radio. But the radio station A gave the private sector, which was the organizer of the rental program for the broadcast of the program, with compensation being income from the so-called "rent". And it's a regular job at a radio station. A. Many exhibitors rent time. In order to broadcast the program, each participant will bring the recording tape which they are responsible for producing to the radio station. A. The broadcast will be provided by the radio station. When considering the plaintiff's regulation on radio and television, 1993, there is no prohibition or restriction that television stations A can not earn income from operating or operating the specified purpose. Or can not be rented to private broadcasters. But there are indications that. A television station can earn money by calling for rent, renting time from the private sector, and arranging rental programs to broadcast programs. The only limitation is that the fixing or adjustment of the rental rate of time must follow the rules and procedures. Radio station A. is a business operator to transmit or broadcast television programs, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (7) provides the right to charge a radio station A called rental. Time is 2 years after the plaintiff sued the case. The plaintiff's case is terminated. When the right to claim the rent, time and value added tax of the plaintiff, which is the presidency, expires. Interest claim, which is the equipment will be terminated under Section 193/26.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 14319/2557.

The plaintiff by the Royal Thai Army Television Channel 5 is the operator or service under the terms and conditions of the lease agreement to broadcast the program between the plaintiff and the defendant. And in doing so, it must be in accordance with the army regulations by the radio and television in 1993 as well as the control of the agreed date of the broadcast broadcast is scheduled to be sure. The fee or compensation at the rate prescribed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff by the radio channel TV Channel 5 is a seller to do the work for both defendants as a service. The plaintiff is a trader who claims to be within the age of 2 years under Section 193/34 (1)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 403/2557.

Even the plaintiff is a trader. But the plaintiff did not charge electricity from the defendant, which is the normal business of the plaintiff. According to the complainant, the plaintiff described the fact that the defendant is a party to the power contract. The neutron switch on the side of the meter shows the power consumption. And create a special ground in the house to bring electricity to the air conditioner. As a result, the meter shows less electricity consumption. The offense of the plaintiff's regulation on the use of electricity and services. Even the plaintiff has a request for a defendant to pay the additional electricity together with the second defendant, it is not the electricity charges that the defendant is owed, but the lawsuit against the claim caused by that. Defendant 1 does not pay the debt to the plaintiff by the loss of electricity as a loss. Is not subject to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34, which must be filed with the court within the age of 2 years, but the age of 10 years under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 16139/2056.

The plaintiff sued the defendant against the claim arising from the memorandum of service payment for the order and / or request the service of the media through the media to the defendant made to the plaintiff. It is not the case that a business operator carries on the business of another person or undertakes to perform a task called for by the employee to receive it. Including money to advance to the age of 2 years, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (7), neither the lawsuit to pay debts under the contract caused by the use of credit. The lawsuit against the defendant, according to the memorandum, there is no law on the age of 10 In particular, the age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, the plaintiff does not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 17738/2555.

The plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the defendant by the claim arising from the memorandum of credit. Because the plaintiff's credit card holder or credit card that is affiliated with another company or institution issued a credit card under an agreement with the plaintiff. The credit card used to pay for goods or services instead of payment to the defendant. And the defendant brought the customer's credit card swip through the recorder and sent the sales information to the plaintiff to obtain money for the goods or services to the defendant. However, the plaintiff can not be charged by the issuing bank. Because the defendant did not submit a receipt for the goods or services to the plaintiff as agreed. Therefore, it is not a business operator to take care of the business of others or work to sue for money to advance under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (7). Specific age The age of 10 years under Section 193/30.

Section 193/35 Under the provisions of Section 193/27, the claim arising from the fact that the debtor accepts liability by written evidence or by providing insurance under Section 193/28 paragraph two shall be valid for a period of two years counting. The date of receipt of the liability or insurance.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7191/2558.

The problem is whether the case is terminated or not. Not the laws relating to public order, the court will raise its own ruling in accordance with Section 142 (5), but it is a matter for the two defendants to fight the case. The statement in the civil case, the two defendants must clearly show that. Both defendants accept or reject the plaintiff's claim, or some, including the reasons for that, according to the Civil Division, Section 177 paragraph two, which, according to the statements of the two defendants, expressly stated in the statement that the plaintiff sued. Expire for 2 years under the Civil and Commercial Section 193/35, citing the defendants made a letter of credit debt after defaulting for many years like this. The defendant is the case that the condition is guilty by evidence. The age of 2 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/35, the two defendants did not fight that the plaintiff sued 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (3), and Section 193 / 14 (1) and 193/15, the court can not put forward the age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (3) to make a decision. Because the diagnosis in addition to the defendant's two statements are prohibited by the Civil Code Section 142 paragraph

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8051/2551.

The plaintiff's deposit into the savings account of the defendant to pay the debt after the contract, credit and the agreement has ended, it is the plaintiff's own action. The debtor accepts the debt to the creditors by repayment to some creditors. The case will not stop the age of stumble. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/14 (1) The plaintiff engaged in commercial banking business is to undertake the business to get the money to advance. Claims of the plaintiff is two years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (7) The plaintiff brought the case on October 25, 2001, 2 years after the date of the plaintiff may enforce the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff sued.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3104/2558.

         Even claims for unpaid interest The age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (1), but it appears that the creditor has sued the first class debtors to repay the principal and interest arrears, stop stumbling stopped under Section 193 / 14 (2) When the age of interruption has stopped The previous period is not counted in the age according to Section 193/15, paragraph two, where the age of interruption ceases to be a penalty for the debtor. It is against the debtor 4, which is the guarantor under Section 692, it appears that the case of creditors suing early debtors to repay. The Civil Court reads the judgment of the Court of Appeal on August 22, 2004, without the petition. The case will be finalized on September 22, 2004, which causes the stumbling block to stop at the end of the time, so it begins to count the new age for the debtor 4 from that time, under Section 193/15, paragraph two, the creditor submitted the request for payment. The debtors in the debt securities of the 4 debtors on June 21, 2007 has not yet expired. According to loan agreements and loan disbursement. Overdraft The debtor is guaranteed 4, so it is not expired. Creditors are entitled to interest payment. Nevertheless, the liability of the debtor 4 in respect of the principal and interest shall be limited to no more than the liability of the debtor. To the creditors in the civil law.

 Judgment of the Supreme Court 5384/2551.

      Credit card debt is the debt of the purchase of goods and services. Or debt from cash withdrawal. All credit card debt is caused by. The age of 2 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (7) can not separate the age difference.

Receiving debt by paying some debt that will cause the age of the break down. The defendant must be the act or consent to the plaintiff to deduct the deposit of the defendant to pay credit card debt as a use. Settlements Without agreement, while the contract is as follows, even if the defendant does not dispute the defendant will be deemed to agree to the plaintiff's action with no such finding. The case is not considered by the defendant to repay part of the debt, which will cause the age of stumble stop. The claim of the plaintiff is terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3101/2551.

On the day of the hearing Court of First Instance inquires facts from plaintiff witnesses about the use of credit cards and the Credit card debt settlement of the defendant. The defendant's statement states the facts. And receipt that the invoice submitted by the plaintiff is correct. And do not be caught by the testimony. Court of First Instance agrees that the case was enough to testify the plaintiff. Then judge the case with the facts as they are. It is not a preliminary decision on legal issues. Civil Procedure Code Section 24 of the Court of First Instance order to waive the testimony of the plaintiff is an order under consideration.

The plaintiff conducts commercial banking business and carries out credit card business. It is a business to provide services to facilitate the purchase. And use of services Cash Advance Credit Card Membership As part of providing such facilities. The plaintiff is a business to undertake various tasks for the members of the plaintiff paid to the creditors of members to replace the former. The members of the cash advance and then charge the member later, it is considered that the payment to the plaintiff to advance. The prosecution of the plaintiff's advances are 2 years old under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (7)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2625/2551.

Plaintiffs provide rental services using radio, communications and equipment. The lessee will have to pay for the rental of radio communications and pay for the use of radio frequencies. It can be said that the plaintiff is a business to rent a movable property. So it is 2 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (6), and the compensation paid by the plaintiff to the defendant is similar to the rent. When the plaintiff sued for more than 2 years from the date the plaintiff can demand the defendant to pay the debt. So lost And when the claim to the President's debt is terminated. Compensation for the use of radio frequencies, which is a fine and owes the equipment. Expires in accordance with Section 193/26.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2456/2551.

The plaintiff is a commercial bank. Defendant is the customer of the plaintiff type of credit card, agree to the conditions of the cardholder. The defendant brought a credit card to withdraw cash advance from the automatic deposit. Of other financial institutions The plaintiff needs to pay the defendant before the defendant to collect money from the defendant. It is a service to facilitate the members. The plaintiff called the fee from the member. In the case of the plaintiff, the business operator to undertake various tasks. Get the money to advance. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (7) is not a case of special contract without any law, especially in the matter. Age is 2 years.

The defendant used his last credit card on December 6, 2535, the plaintiff notified the defendant to pay the debt arising from the use of credit cards by January 2, 2536, but the defendant did not pay the due. The defendant is the default. The plaintiff will enforce their claims from January 3, 1993 onwards. Maturity on January 3, 1993. The plaintiff brought the amount of Baht 4,326.42 of the defendant to repay part of the debt on March 3, 2000 is a leading. Deposits from other accounts as plaintiff and defendant have agreed to deduct. Debt that the defendant did not know, it is the plaintiff's actions unilaterally. I do not know that the debt of the defendant. It is the action after the debt. The plaintiff sued the case on August 24, 2004 expired 2 years, thus expiring.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2454/2551.

The plaintiff carries out repair services. The plaintiff is a trader. The defendant is a non-life insurance business. Hired a plaintiff to repair the car with the defendant, which is not. Trafficking business The plaintiff's claim to pay the car repairs of the insured to the defendant. The wage or the value of the work done for the business of the defendant. Which is a debtor The case must be with the exception of the age limit of 2 years, according to the end of. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1) The claim of the plaintiff is 5 years under Section 193/33 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3503/2551.

The defendant employed the plaintiff to build a house for the defendant to be sold to the plaintiff to do the case to the defendant. The plaintiff is a trader to get the job done. But the plaintiff's construction to the defendant. Defendant for sale in the project of land allocation by the purpose of the defendant. The plaintiff's actions are made for the business of the defendant, which is the debtor. The age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (5), with Section 193/34 (1)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2211/2551.

The plaintiff sued the defendant agreed to contract the plaintiff to design and decorate the project of Kosa Complex and Oasis Plasza of the defendant. The defendant accepted that the plaintiff actually hired, so the implementation of the plaintiff's employment contract, although the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. But it is the case that the plaintiff has done for the defendant's business. The age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (5), with Section 193/34 (1)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1735/2551.

Elevator installed at the condominium. It is for the mutual benefit of the co-owner, so it is a common property. The costs of maintenance of the lift must be in accordance with the provisions of Condominium Act, 1979, Section 18, paragraph two, which has to pay monthly. The costs of the defendant's default is not paid, so it is considered as payment. The age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (4), and must be regarded as a claim of this type, the Civil and Commercial Code has set a specific age, and therefore can not bring the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193 / 30 is applicable.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1343/2551.

In cases where the trader or industry calls for the value of the delivered goods, which is in force for a period of 2 years, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1), unless exempted by the law. That Unless it is done for the affairs of the debtor itself. This is a legal exception, considering the business of the debtor. What is the exception? It does not take into account whether it is done for the benefit of the creditors or not.

Defendant 1 buys cement from the plaintiff to be sold or mixed into ready-mixed concrete sold to the public. It is considered that it was done for the business of the defendant, which is a debtor. This is the case with the exception as provided in Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1) The claim of the plaintiff is not subject to the age of 2 years, but the age of 5 years under Section 193/33 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 134/2551.

The loan agreement has that. The defendant promised to use the principal plus interest to the plaintiff. The monthly installment of 5,000 baht as the defendant claims to pay interest on the money under the loan agreement, so it is considered to call for interest with the money to pay back in installments with a five-year term. according Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (2) (formerly Section 166), is not a case where there is no law stipulating that the age of 10 years is required under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5522/2550.

The plaintiff engaged in the trade of auto parts sued for the car parts that were delivered to the defendant. The defendant purchased the goods from the plaintiff to repair the car to the insured against the defendant, including those who have a dispute with the insured in case the insured against the defendant is wrong. The use of insurance claims, which is a non-life insurance company within the purpose of the defendant, so that the defendant purchased auto parts from the plaintiff. It is made for the affairs of the defendants themselves. The age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (5), with Section 193/34 (1)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7693/2550.

Counting the period does not count the first day of the inclusion period under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/3, paragraph two. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on October 25, 2000, the last day of the term of 2 years from October 25, 1998. Defendant 1 has been delivered to the plaintiff has the right to claim the first defendant, all claims of the plaintiff is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4728/2550.

The plaintiff, a trader, called for the work done and the costs that the plaintiff has advanced to defend the goods for delivery to customers of the defendant in foreign countries, which called for. It was done for the affairs of the defendant, which is the debtor itself. It is in the exception of the provisions of Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1), with a two-year term. It is five years old under section 193/33 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3329/2550.

The plaintiffs sell industrial machinery. Goldsmith tool to the defendant. When the defendant did not pay the price. And the plaintiff sued the defendant to pay the price in the case that the plaintiff, a trader or industry calls the value of the delivery under Section 193/34 (1)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2316/2550.

Letter of the defendant's debt 1 is a letter that the defendant is a debt owed by the plaintiff by the monthly installment of the defendant is a guarantor. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to settle the repayment by repayment in installments. Claims of the plaintiff is the age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (2) When the two defendants failed to pay the debt to the plaintiff from the first installment. The plaintiff may enforce the claim that the two defendants must repay each installment since the defendant has to pay the debt for the period. Claims on any debt that expires 5 years from the date of filing up to the date of the claim.

The debt has not been agreed. If either defendant defaults on one of the defaults or all debts are due, the plaintiff will have the right to demand that the two defendants repay all of them immediately. The message is stated in the debt book. If any one of the defaults to agree to the lawsuit immediately. Means the claim of the plaintiff will occur only when the two defendants defaulted in that period, only the installment is not yet due, the plaintiff has no right to claim the two defendants.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8021/2549.

Court of First Instance sentenced the defendants to pay interest to the plaintiff under the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 391, paragraph two, such interest is a replacement for damage to the plaintiff has restored the original status, so it is not accrued interest or arrears. Paid for 5 years under Section 193/33

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8419/2550.

Dispute land is a public domain for people to share. There are no royalties or the right to use the government to the state, and no decree has been withdrawn, so it is still in the public interest for the people to share. But those who are in possession of disputed land have better rights than others.

The plaintiff is the land dispute. Even the plaintiff will not have the ownership or ownership of the property because it is a public interest. But the plaintiff is the landlord disputed, it is better. The defendant bought only the plaintiff's home at the auction of the plaintiff, and then refused to dismantle the house from the land disputes, as well as defend the plaintiff's rights. The plaintiff has the power to sue the defendant to dismantle the house from the dispute.

The plaintiff is the land of the dispute, which is public domain for the public to share the plaintiff has a better right than the defendant and the defendant did not take possession of the plaintiff. Defendant raised the age of 1 year from being taken possession of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1375, paragraph two to fight the plaintiff that the plaintiff sued.

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. Inheritance to enforce the three defendants, which is not a legal successor of the plaintiff when the plaintiff sued the three defendants have not survived 10 years from the date of the plaintiff. The right to claim against the plaintiff (plaintiff's date of payment), the plaintiff sued not to terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6437/2550.

The plaintiff sued the plaintiff by the defendant, the defendant in the plaintiff's land plots in the plaintiff, according to the map at the end of the lawsuit has an area of ​​about 4 rai, which maps the lawsuit as part of the complaint and identified the claim. The defendant is clearly intractable enough to defend the defendant and defend the case. The plaintiff's complaint in this section is not covered.

The plaintiff sued the plaintiff for a share in the ownership of the plaintiff. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1363, where the lawsuit, such as Section 1363, paragraph two, is the subject of a collective right to do legal acts do not share ownership up to a period of not more than ten years. Not age The plaintiff's case is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6335/2550.

The defendant's contribution deducted from the wages to be paid to the plaintiff in each installment is the plaintiff and the defendant as a counterparty wishes to use as collateral damage that may arise from the construction. It can not be regarded as an overdue wage that the plaintiff must claim a claim within 2 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1) Claims in this case are not law-specific age requirements. So it is 10 years old under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6109/2550.

Compromise Clause 4 stipulates that if the defendant defaulted one period or one month. All defaults allow the plaintiff to force. When the defendant did not pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees to the plaintiff under the compromise agreement. Clause 2 within the date of June 15, 1995, it can be held that the defendant is defaulting on the debt to the plaintiff to comply with the verdict. The plaintiff has the right to enforce the case to the defendant in accordance with Article 4 of the plaintiff. Therefore, the claim to enforce the debt of the plaintiff under the verdict of such consent, which has a 10-year term, starting on June 16, 1995. Not starting on July 16, 2538, which is the day after the defendant defaulted, defaults and interest payments to the plaintiff for the first installment of the contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6024/2550

The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one, defines the age of the claim, arising in breach of two cases, ie, the first case is one year from the date of knowing the violation and knowing the person will be required to pay the claim. The second case is ten years from the date of the breach. In case of any such case, it is deemed that the right to claim damages is terminated. The provisions of which shall be counted ten years after the date of the breach. The date of the breach shall arise from the date on which the action was taken or refrained from causing the damage. When will the results of the breach occur? It is another violation of the day when the effect of the violation occurs so different. This case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit that between June 1979 to August 1980 the two defendants by the defendant, 2 deliberately or negligently. Land Surveyor Certificates (Miss. 3g.) Of the plaintiff. Unlawfulness and formalities of government. Violation to the plaintiff caused the plaintiff to be damaged as follows. The violation was delayed on August 31, 1980. The plaintiff sued on July 7, 2542, which was ten years from the date of the violation. Plaintiff's case will be terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4848/2550.

Contract of employment as a contract of employment is 2 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (16), the plaintiff and the defendant did not agree to schedule the payment of wages. Must assume that the wage due date when the defendant was given a job done under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 602, paragraph one, the defendant wishes the plaintiff to prosecute only in the Court of First Instance. When the plaintiff sued the defendant and the Court of First Instance has a judgment that the plaintiff. Delivered and the defendant was given a job done under the contract. The right to the plaintiff to pay the wages immediately before the Court of First Instance.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4728/2550.

The plaintiff, the trader called for the work done and the costs that the plaintiff. Advocate for the defendant to send the goods to the customer of the defendant in a foreign country, the charge was made for the business of the defendant, which is. The debtor itself. It is in the exception of the provisions of Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1), with a two-year term. It is five years old under section 193/33 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5142/2550.

When the plaintiff's officials have investigated the facts to find civil liability, until the two defendants were civil liability and reported the matter to the supervisor in a hierarchy. And on January 8, 2001, the director of the highway. 8, acting Deputy Director General Acting Director General of the Department of Highways. Signed in the request to the two defendants jointly compensate the plaintiff. It is clearly stated that the defendant is a violation of the plaintiff, the defendant is a second defendant in the car causing the violation of damages 31,373.75 baht and the two defendants jointly liable for payment. Speech to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is considered that the Director of the Office of Highway 8, acting Deputy Director General. Acting in lieu of the Director General of the Department of Highways, at that time, as the representative and the person who presented the intent of the plaintiff. I know of a violation and realize that the defendant must be used since January 8, 2001. So when the plaintiff brought the case to both defendants on January 6, 2003, for a period of more than one year. The defendant's second term. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5140/2550.

The Commissioner is authorized to sign and seal the defendant's actions on behalf of the defendant, even if the defendant did not seal the defendant. The letter of the defendant has the name of the defendant on the top of the paper, the circumstances of the MPs are considered as the defendant of the defendant to the debt of the plaintiff to the plaintiff. The defendant's actions. The debt has one message. "... Please, please, lower your price as you should. And to request payment of such equipment on a monthly basis. "So any action without any doubt shows that implicitly. Acceptance by Claim It accepts debt, which stops the age of stumble. Starting from the date specified in the letter of debt to the date of filing not more than 2 years, the claim of the plaintiff is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4848/2550.

The contract that the plaintiff hired three defendants that the contract of employment of the right to claim under the employment contract is valid for 2 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (16), the age of the claim. The three defendants pay the debt. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/12. "The age of initiation from the time when the claim may be enforced ..." and Section 602, paragraph one. "When it is given," he said, "so when the fact that the plaintiff and the three defendants have agreed to pay the deadline. It must be considered wage debt. It must be considered that the wage debt that is due when the three defendants have been given the work done. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 602, paragraph one, the delivery and acceptance of the work done is the fact that after the Chiang Mai Provincial Court verdict, the three defendants are satisfied and do not wish to prosecute. The defendant stated that the three plaintiffs will prosecute only in the court. When the plaintiff was a lawyer to prosecute the three defendants in the Court of First Instance, Chiang Mai Provincial Court until the Chiang Mai Provincial Court has a verdict on June 30, 2002 must be considered the plaintiff has delivered and the three defendants have been handed over the work done under the contract. The right to the plaintiff to call for compensation will occur immediately when the Chiang Mai court has a verdict. When the lawsuit finally arrived, the plaintiff did not appeal. The plaintiff filed an appeal that it is believed that the plaintiff made the arbitration. The plaintiff may raise the claim is not. When the plaintiff brought the case against the three defendants on May 4, 2005, the period of more than two years from the date the Court of First Instance has a judgment. The plaintiff sued.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 755/2550.

The plaintiff is a corporation by a department in the government. A Director General is a representative. Counting the age of violation Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one must commence from the date the Director General of the plaintiff's representatives know of the violation and realize the need to pay compensation.

As a roadside engineer, which is only a servant in the plaintiff's department. Not even the plaintiff's representative will know about the violation and realize the need to pay the claim since 1996, but the plaintiff's representative informed the matter on September 26, 2546 that the plaintiff knew that the violation. And aware of the need to pay compensation on September 26, 2003, until March 12, 2004, the date of filing a lawsuit is not over a year, the plaintiff's case does not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 389/2550.

The plaintiff knows about the savings cooperative, the defendant has resolved the plaintiff to become a member of the defendant since January 11, 1998, indicating that the plaintiff was aware of the need to pay compensation on the said day, not the date of receipt of a notice from the defendant. The plaintiff is aware that the person must pay compensation. Because the plaintiff is the victim to bring the case to court. Do not have to wait to hear from the defendant. Although the plaintiff has recently received a notice of the defendant's resolution on January 21, 1998, it did not affect the newly started age. When the plaintiff sued the lawsuit for more than one year since the knowledge of the violation and realize the need to pay compensation. Therefore, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 386/2550.

The plaintiff sued the defendant 2 as a violation of the first defendant as an employer, the second defendant is a violation of the employment. And the third defendant jointly liable as the recipient of the indemnity liability of the defendant to the 1st and the third defendant is different. For defendants 1 and 2 are valid for 1 year from the date the injured party becomes aware of the violation and are aware that the person will be required to pay the damages. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one, the third defendant age 2 years from the date of the death under Section 882 paragraph one, when the age of the defendant, the first defendant and the third defendant can be separated under Section 295 of the. The age or the penalty to the debtor that the third defendant can not raise the age under Section 448 paragraph one up.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 321/2550.

The claim for damages in the offense is punishable by the Penal Code. The longer the criminal age under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph two, it only refers to the offender or co-defendant in a particular offense. It does not mean that others do not share in the offense. Claim to the defendant, the second employer. The age of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one, when the defendant to fight the case of this case occurred on February 20, 2542, but the plaintiff sued for damages in the case of violation on April 22, 2545 after birth. For 3 years, the plaintiff sued the case. This is the cause of the lack of understanding that. From the date of the violation of the plaintiff's date of filing 1 year, the defendant's second testimony to the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 177, paragraph two, the case for the defendant, so there is a question of age.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 307/2550.

The action will be guilty. Act on offenses arising from the use of checks, BE 2534 (1991), Section 4, shall be issued to check the actual and legally enforceable debts. This is a component of the offense. It is not just a detail that can be judged in the class. The plaintiff sued the defendant, but the defendant issued a check to pay debts under the debt and a copy of the debt. It's a lecture that lacks the element of fault. Because the debt does not cause new debt. Only cause the age to stop. The complaint of the plaintiff did not like it. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 158 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 204/2550.

Receiving debt that causes the age of stumble ceased. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/14 (1) shall be the case where the debtor acts against the creditor. The plaintiff, which is a creditor to reduce the debt to the defendant, which is a debtor does not meet conditions under the provisions of the said. The defendant to return the goods to the plaintiff, some of it is exercised as a contracting party. The defendant does not agree that the outstanding debt to the plaintiff. It can not be considered as debt to the plaintiff as well. It does not break down the age.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 101/2550.

The two defendants entered into a compromise agreement with the bank and the court agreed that Clause 1 agreed to repay the principal and interest within six months from the date of the compromise agreement. Clause 2 agrees to pay fees not refunded by the court and the attorney fee of 5,000 baht within. March 9, 1995, and Clause 3. If the defendant fails to pay or fails to comply with any of the contracts, it shall be deemed default and shall be null and void. Immediately. When the defendant did not repay the debt under contract No. 2 within March 9, 1995, it is considered default and the bank can immediately enforce the case under the contract. Article 3, therefore, the period of time starting from March 10, 1995 not starting from the 9th. August 1995 after 6 months from the date of the compromise agreement because the defendant did not pay the principal and interest under the contract. The Bank filed on May 9, 2548 to 10 years and then expire.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 17/2550.

Defendant 1 to 3 entered into a contract of performance of the defendant by the defendant in the defendant's fourth defendant as the third defendant, the third defendant agreed to enter into a contract of guarantee and agree with the defendant. Employee plaintiff has misappropriated the plaintiff's money. And make a letter of debt that will pay the plaintiff the first installment on August 5, 2537 as follows: S liability is a liability under the employment contract, which is not law-specific, so it is 10 years. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, this time began from the day of misconduct misappropriation on January 14, 1993, but when the Senate made a letter to the plaintiff. Payment of the first plaintiff's payment of 200,000 baht on August 5, 2537. The receipt of such debt resulted in the age of stumble ceased by the time before not counted in the age according to Civil and Commercial Code. Section 193/14 (1) and Section 193/15 and the age of stumble ceases to be effective against all four defendants, which is a guarantor under Section 692 of the case. Liability under Section 193/35, which lasts for 2 years. Significant later appeared on that. It is not the first payment to the plaintiff on August 5, 2537 under the condition that debt. As a result, the age of the stumble ceases, ending on that date. And starting from August 6, 1994 onwards, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit on April 9, 2537, from the date of August 6, 2537, which is the date of the new age of not more than 10 years, the plaintiff did not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7650/2549.

Defendant 1 buy ready mixed concrete from the plaintiff to be sold to the customer of the defendant, one of the profits of one of the defendant's own business, which is exempt under Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (1), so that the plaintiff sued for the price of concrete, ready to be prepared from the defendant, the first 5 years under Section 193/33 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3314/2549.

Although the plaintiff is a trader referred to the delivery of the delivery, which is 2 years old under Section 193/34 (1), but the end of this section, the exemption clause is not in the age of 2. Year unless it was done for the affairs of the debtor itself. It must consider the business of the debtor to conduct business in any case. The two defendants purchased fuel from the plaintiff to the passenger car. Both defendants engaged in passenger and cargo transport. It can be considered that the two defendants purchased fuel from the plaintiff to use in the affairs of the two defendants. That is the case with the exception. Not in the age of 2 years, according to the end of. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1), but the age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2261/2549.

Fertilizer trading between the plaintiff and the defendant has an agreement that if the defendant did not pay the full amount of fertilizer on the contract date. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to pay installments with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum. If the payment is over 12 months, the contract is overdue interest in excess of 12 months at the rate of 12 percent per annum until the payment is completed. When the plaintiff has the right to claim interest from the defendant in accordance with such an agreement and the defendant is not paid, so the interest is arrears or arrears. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (1), which is 5 years, not 10 years.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9009 - 9014/2549.

The six plaintiffs sued. Defendant dismissed the six plaintiffs by the six plaintiffs did not commit an offense unfair dismissal, the defendant forced the defendant to pay damages from unfair dismissal does not sue the defendant pay the wages or damages arising from the contract. It is not a wage or other things that have the age of 2 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34, but in the case of compensation for termination of employment. This is not fair The Labor Court Establishment Act and the Labor Court Procedure Act, BE 2522 (1979), Section 49, which do not have specific legal provisions. The age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4644/2549.

The lease agreement requires that the lender terminate the contract if the default is not. When renting a car to hire a car, if the purchase price is not enough to pay the hire purchase still have to pay the contract. All expenses and damages are deducted from the rent paid by the renter. The renter agrees to reimburse that amount to the owner. The agreement is an indemnity agreement. The lawsuit is not an unpaid hire purchase. And it is not the case that the business owner renting movable property called the rent. It does not fall into the age of 2 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (6), neither is the case that the landlord sued the lessee about the lease at the age of 6 months when the law does not prescribe the age. especially Must be 10 years of age under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8696/2549.

The plaintiff sued for damages that the defendant still owns the taxi of the plaintiff. The plaintiff to the lessee should benefit from the leased property for rent by reason of the termination of the lease between the plaintiff and the defendant. Even if it is called 400 baht per day, the same rate as rent. But it is a lawsuit against the loss of benefits from the use of property, rather than suing rent. In this case, the Civil and Commercial Code does not prescribe a specific age. The age of ten years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8694/2549.

The Enforcement Officer announced the auction of property by setting conditions for entering the price and promised. The buyer must pay the remaining amount within 15 days from the date of purchase onwards. The period of 15 days for the buyer to pay the remaining amount to pay the contract for a period of time to Repayment Is not the age of the law that the parties will agree to abstain or expand or fall into the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/11, the Enforcement Officer and the buyer agreed to extend the remaining payment period. To go further to find a violation of the provisions. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 510 and 515, so there is no legal grounds for the court to order the revocation of orders and the auction of the Enforcement Officer. Such a case. The court would like to have the defendant's motion to file a motion without having to make an inquiry.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8242 - 8246/2549.

Plaintiffs 1 to 3 apply for overtime pay under the Labor Contract, which, according to the Labor Protection Act, BE 2541, Section 5, defines "wage" means the money paid by the employer and the employee to be paid for work. Employment contract for normal working period ... And the term "overtime pay" means the money paid by the employer to an employee in return for overtime work on a working day. Even if overtime is not paid according to the meaning. This is not the amount paid by the employer to the employee in return for normal workdays. But it is money that employers pay back to work outside normal hours. The employer is obliged to pay the employee under the employment contract. Is considered Civil and Commercial Code, Section 575, overtime pay is one of the benefits. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (9), which has a 2-year lawsuit.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7875/2549.

The plaintiff has the purpose of operating the machinery. Furniture, electrical equipment and parts and accessories of such goods. The plaintiff's distribution of furniture to the defendant, it is a business or the business of the plaintiff, the defendant is a hotel business. The defendant bought a furniture from the plaintiff to be used in the hotel business of the defendant, which is the business of the defendant, so the exception to. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1), so that the plaintiff sued the price of furniture that is overdue from the defendant to the age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7611/2549.

The plaintiff sued for the lack of benefits of using a rental car after the lease agreement. Did not file a lease The plaintiff sued the plaintiff for the lack of interest in the use of a car that is 10 years old, not the age of 2 years, as the defendant, 2 petition, so the right to claim the lack of benefits from the hire of the plaintiff's car is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6785/2549.

Under the Civil and Commercial Code and the Act on Compensation for Export Taxes Produced in the Kingdom No provision of age in the case of specific claims under this contract. The claim of the plaintiff to the defendant that the age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 claim of the plaintiff does not terminate the recovery should not be.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5996/2549. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/12, states that "the age of commencement is limited to the time when the claim may be enforced. If a claim to refrain from any action. Starting from the first time that the violation of the act. "When the Central Labor Court heard the fact that the defendant, the second defendant has a verbal agreement with the plaintiff. If the plaintiff can detect fraud and bring back the fraudulent money of the defendant, the plaintiff will receive special compensation. When it appears that the plaintiff has found the fraud and cause the defendant to file a lawsuit against the Siam Commercial Bank Public Company Limited and Bangkok Bank Public Company Limited until March 31, 2003, the defendant received a return of 9,403,007.63 baht in accordance with the conditions. The verbal agreement may enforce the right to claim the defendant to pay special compensation since then. Civil and Commercial Section 193/12, dated October 15, 2001, the date of the plaintiff's resignation as an employee of the defendant, and when the plaintiff, a regular employee sued for special compensation is a percentage of the results. Work done It is a claim for compensation under the employment contract based on the work done in the normal working hours of the wage. As a claim, the age of 2 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (9) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Central Labor Court on May 6, 2004, so it has not expired 2 years from March 31. 2003, which may be enforceable. Plaintiff's case is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5994/2549.

The plaintiff, the employer sued the defendant, which is an employee to pay debts arising from the defendant's offense, the labor contract by the plaintiff to withdraw the goods and then return the debt to the plaintiff to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant liability under the employment contract. Do not sue the defendant liability under the letter of debt. The only claim that the defendant made a letter to the debt as evidence that the defendant has committed a violation of the employment contract. The debt is not defined by law, especially the age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5201/2549.

Defendant 1 hires another building. In this case, the defendant has ordered zinc from the plaintiff and hired plaintiff to roof the building. The case is therefore in force. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1) at the end. Unless it is done for the affairs of the debtor itself. Therefore, the age of the plaintiff's claim is set to 5 years from the date of payment of the defendant, which defaulted to the date of filing a five-year lawsuit filed by the plaintiff does not terminate.

The plaintiff delivered a roof installation to the first defendant, and then when the rain fell, the roof leak and open when the wind was hit. A defect that can not be found at the time of delivery. The plaintiff is liable to the defendant in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 598 by the defendant has the right to pay only to the plaintiff to repair the defect. When the plaintiff has not been repaired, then the defendant will prefer to hold the lease.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5033/2549.

The Labor Protection Act BE 2541, Section 125, paragraph one. "When a labor inspector has made an order under Section 124, if the employer, employee or heir of the employee who died in dissatisfaction with the order is brought to court within 30 days from the date of knowing the order," which gives time. Taking the case to court according to this provision is the time to prosecute. Is not the age of any claim is the right to bring the case to court. The Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and the Procedures for Labor Trial, BE 2522 (1979), Section 8 (4), shall be subject to Section 26 of the said Act. "The period prescribed in this Act or as determined by the Labor Court. The labor court has the power to shorten or expand as necessary and for the benefit of justice. "Therefore, the time limit for such a case can be reduced or extended as necessary and for the benefit of justice.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4998/2549.

Filing a lawsuit for the redemption of mortgage. Mortgage and sale of land to the plaintiff is the case where the owner of the property track and recover their property. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1336 has no age.

The defendant 4 to buy land disputes amount of up to 2,500,000 by the already know. Power of Attorney is only the signature of the plaintiff, which does not say what authority to do and see the message in the power of attorney. The plaintiff did not consent. Caused by the serious negligence of the defendant, the 4th defendant of the scam of the defendant is not due to the plaintiff defendant 1, or allow the defendant to defend himself as a representative of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not responsible for the defendant's 4 According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 821, 822, so the defendant is not entitled to land the plaintiff to sell the plaintiff to the defendant. 4 Act of sale between the plaintiff and the defendant 4 is not like and not binding. plaintiff The plaintiff has the right to pursue the return of his property from the person who has no right to hold. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff for the sale of the plaintiff and the defendant 4.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4997/2549.

The plaintiff sued the plaintiff to both defend the plaintiff's purchase of land to make the plaintiff believe and lose money to the two defendants 1,500,000 baht, and the application to force the two defendants together to spend money on the plaintiff. THB 1,500,000 equal to the price of land purchased by the plaintiff to the defendant to both. Not a complaint about a violation of the age of only one year. But it is the right to pursue the property of the plaintiff returned from the two defendants have no right to hold. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1336, with no time limit for owners of such property. The interest of the money, which is considered damages, the plaintiff's complaint is a civil suit related to the criminal case of fraud. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit during a criminal case is not resolved. It does not disappear. Criminal Procedure Code Section 51 paragraph two

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4857/2549.

The defendant's plaintiff's car repair contract is a 2-year contract under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1)

The plaintiff delivered the car was repaired to the car repairs. The plaintiff may enforce his right to demand that the defendant pay the debt from the date of delivery of each car to the repair. The defendant brought money to pay the plaintiff some. The debt to the plaintiff. The age of stumbling stops and begins to count from the new date. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/14 (1) and Section 193/15

The plaintiff brought 41 debts totaling 402,197 baht, which the plaintiff can enforce their rights before May 8, 1998 to sue on June 19, 2000, which more than two years, then the plaintiff sued in this section to terminate. The debt repair service for 11 items of 47,500 baht, it appears that on May 8, 2000, which is the defendant to repay some. 11 car repair debt does not expire. The debt must be recalculated. And when the lawsuit is not up to 2 years, the plaintiff in this section 11 is not terminated.

The debt that will cause the stumbling block to stop before the debt. When the car repair debt of 402,197 baht has expired since before May 8, 1998. The partial repayment of the defendant on such day does not result in the age of interruption.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4787/2549.

The plaintiff traveled from Bangkok to Udon Thani on July 25, 2541, the date the defendant should deliver the luggage lost to the plaintiff. Life begins from that date. Although the plaintiff sued on August 9, 1999, which was over a year ago, but on November 13, 2541, the defendant has a letter of indemnity for damages to the plaintiff is $ 400, although not fully according to the amount claimed by the plaintiff. It is a debt. As a result, the age of stumbling stops. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/14 (1) When the plaintiff sued the case on August 9, 2542, it does not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4786/2549.

The lawsuit asks children to be children. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1556, paragraph three stipulates that in the case of suicidal children must be filed within one year from the date of legal age. The birth certificate and a copy of the house. The petitioner was born on May 24, 1969. The petitioner filed the petition on October 20, 2003, while the petitioner was 34 years old, so the petition was filed at the end of one year from the date of the legal age. The case of the petitioner is terminated. Even if the claimant claims that the deceased has never denied that the petitioner is not a child, there is no dispute about his or her legal rights or duties until the deceased is dead. The petitioner asked for a family allowance for a member of the Teachers Council. Claim that there is no evidence that the petitioner is a lawful child of the deceased. This is a problem that has just been debated by the petitioner. The applicant must exercise his right to a court order that the petitioner be lawfully deceased. Section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code, but the exercise of the civil rights of the petitioner must also be subject to the provisions of such age. The petitioner claims that the petitioner has just been disputed. The lawsuit has not been resolved.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4206/2549.

Marine Seamen Act 1991, Section 46 applies only if the consignee or the sender files a lawsuit against the carrier for damages. Damage or delay of delivery of the carriage by sea.

The plaintiff sued the defendant to deliver the plaintiff's goods to the plaintiff's customers in Saudi Arabia. The defendant represented the plaintiff. The defendant is liable for delivery of the documents to the customer at the destination under the delay. Customers do not accept the product. The plaintiff did not claim that the defendant was a carrier of the sea and that the defendant was liable for the loss. Damage or delay in delivery of goods during the course of the goods being in the custody of the defendant under Section 39 of the 1991 Act of Carriage of Sea Cargoes. Section 46 Enforceable But since the Act does not regulate the age of the case. The provisions on liability of agents must be introduced. The Civil and Commercial Code came into force, but the Civil and Commercial Code Book 1, Chapter 6, Chapter 2, with respect to age, has no provision of age in this particular case as well. So it is 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30 when the plaintiff informed on December 8, 2001 that the defendant committed the wrongdoing, so customers can not pick up the goods immediately cause damage. It is considered that the date of the plaintiff may enforce claims for damages from the defendant. And to date, the plaintiff sued not more than 10 years, so do not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3648/2549.

Section 5 of the Officers' Liability Act is a matter for which a government agency is liable to the victim for the consequences of a violation committed by its officials in carrying out its duties. The victim may directly sue the government agency. But it will not be sued. This case is the plaintiff, the police department sued the two defendants, which is a police officer. Both defendants acted on behalf of the plaintiff's representatives, which is a legal entity causing damage to other people. And the plaintiff is liable for compensation for damages that follow. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 76, paragraph one, the plaintiff has the power to sue. And last 10 years.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3648/2549.

The Supreme Court has the judgment of the two defendants, the plaintiff's plaintiff and the plaintiff together to return to the ducks. If the night can not use the price instead. The plaintiff paid the court to pay the debt on July 18, 2538, which was paid to the plaintiff and the plaintiff sued the two defendants jointly liable for payment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the right to recourse against the two defendants before. Infringement Liability Act On November 15, 1996 the age of the plaintiff's claim to the defendant. Is not subject to Act. But under the force. Civil and Commercial Code The prosecution of the plaintiff. There is no law on age specific, so it is 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30.

The Supreme Court ruled in that case. The two defend the ducks of the law. Violation against the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff and the defendant to be the defendant in the case before it, it must be considered both plaintiff and the defendant in the court proceedings in the case before. Judgment of the Supreme Court thus binding the plaintiff and the two defendants as well. Code of Civil Procedure, Section 145, paragraph one, the two defendants can not cite the facts to argue otherwise.

Both defendants committed violations of the act of the two defendants, which is the representative of the plaintiff is a legal entity. The plaintiff brought money to court for the price of ducks under the Supreme Court's judgment. The plaintiff has the right to recourse to the two defendants. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 76, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3314/2549.

Although the plaintiff is a trader referred to the delivery of the delivery, which is 2 years old under Section 193/34 (1), but the end of this section, the exemption clause is not in the age of 2. Year unless it was done for the affairs of the debtor itself. It must consider the business of the debtor to conduct business in any case. The two defendants purchased fuel from the plaintiff to the passenger car. Both defendants engaged in passenger and cargo transport. It can be considered that the two defendants purchased fuel from the plaintiff to use in the affairs of the two defendants. That is the case with the exception. Not in the age of 2 years, according to the end of. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1), but the age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3097/2549.

The defendant requested to open a letter of credit with the plaintiff, a commercial bank to order goods from overseas vendors. And the plaintiff to the defendant to the first payment of goods, instead of the defendant to the first one is a type of commercial loans only. Is not the case that the plaintiff is a business owner or the business of the defendant or the defendant to work on behalf of the defendant in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (7) can not be taken. Two years of age in accordance with such provisions shall apply in the case. And the defendant signed a letter of credit with the plaintiff, but the defendant can not pay the debt to the plaintiff under the Letter of Credit. The trust receipt contract with the plaintiff to obtain the plaintiff's receipt of goods to receive goods. Then pay the plaintiff later. Subsequently, the defendant did not receive a payment to the plaintiff, the defendant is a plaintiff's debt under the trust receipt, which is a contract with the letter of credit. There is no specific age requirement for trust receipts. Will be 10 years under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2983/2549.

The plaintiff sued the defendant 1 liable under the contract of letter of credit. The plaintiff must directly bind the seller of goods, which is the beneficiary under the letter of credit. The plaintiff is not a business to receive a job for the defendant to call for a salary to be received, including the plaintiff's advance from the first defendant under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (7) Litigation under the Letter of Credit Letters of Credit So it is 10 years old under Section 193/30.

Defendant 1 contract to open letter of credit to the plaintiff, but the defendant can not pay the debt to the plaintiff under the contract to open letter of credit. The trust receipt contract with the plaintiff to obtain documents from the plaintiff to obtain goods before payment to the plaintiff later. Later, the defendant did not receive payment to the plaintiff to complete the payment. Debt under trust receipt is not a debt that business operators take care of other people's business or undertake the work called for the salary that will be earned from it. Including money to advance. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (7) When there is no specific law prescribing age. The age of 10 years under Section 193/30 Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33, paragraph one means that the interest arrears will be terminated only over 5 years from the date of filing. Unpaid interest not exceeding 5 years. The plaintiff has the right to claim interest overdue from the date of filing back up to 5 years.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2880/2549.

Section 19 is a time limit for the assessment officer to issue a subpoena for the applicant and the subpoena. To order the applicant or witness to take the account. The document or evidence should be displayed. When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that any person presents the item as filed incorrectly or not. Such a summons must be made within two years from the date of filing. And if it is the case that the Director General has approved the extension of the time to issue a subpoena, it must not exceed five years from the date of submission. If this deadline is over, it will only affect the assessment officer has no authority to issue a subpoena. And issue a subpoena to the applicant or witness to bring accounts, documents or other evidence to show. Is not the age requirement in the claim to pay taxes? The issuance of a subpoena to a person who is liable to pay specific business tax under Section 91/21 (5) provides that the provisions of Section 88 shall apply mutatis mutandis. The authority of the assessment officer is not subject to Section 19 with respect to that age. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/31, stipulates that the claim of the State to claim the tax for a period of 10 years, the assessment officer has the power to assess the tax from the plaintiff within 10 years from the due date. The plaintiff must file a specific business tax statement. When the period is still in the age limit. The assessment officer will evaluate the plaintiff to pay specific business tax.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2599/2549.

The plaintiff sued by claiming that the principal of the charge. The plaintiff deposited the defendant. Later, another person falsified the signature of the plaintiff to withdraw money from the plaintiff's deposit account. The defendant committed negligence to allow withdrawals. The plaintiff was damaged. Ask the defendant to pay the amount of the plaintiff to be withdrawn with interest. The plaintiff's complaint is a charge to the defendant to return the deposit. Even the plaintiff to describe the negligence of the defendant to show that. Defendant will be liable to the plaintiff because it does not perform the duties. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 659, paragraph three. The lawsuit was filed in violation of the one year, as the defendant did not petition. The claim for refund under the deposit agreement is not the law of age specifically. The age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2058/2549.

Plaintiff defendant entered into a contract to buy and sell land title deeds No. 15658 and agreed to purchase land dispute, which is adjacent to the land on May 20, 1976. Later, on December 19, 1978, the defendant registered the transfer of title deed no. 15658 The plaintiff under the contract to buy and sell land, which is repayable to the plaintiff. It is the debt. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/14 (1) The age of stumble stop. The time elapsed is not counted in age, and the new age is counted from the moment of stoppage. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/15, the purchase and sale of the law does not have a specific age, especially the age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, and began counting the age of the new from December 20, 1978 to date. October 27, 1987 The defendant made a written receipt of 50,000 Baht from the plaintiff as land value under the road purchase agreement will be sold on May 20, 1976. The rest will pay. On the day of the transfer contract. The text in the letter indicates that the defendant also has to transfer ownership of land in the street to the plaintiffs. It is a letter of credit. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/14 (1), makes the interruption age again. The time elapsed is not counted in age. And starting from the age of 18 October 2530 onwards, which is until October 22, 1997, the plaintiff sued the case is not more than 10 years, the plaintiff's case is not terminated.

The void can not be ratified, and any one of them has the right to void the void. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 172, paragraph one, the problem that the contract to buy and sell land dispute is void or not. It is a problem of public peace. Even the defendant will not raise this issue, said the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. The defendant also has the right to raise this issue, said the Supreme Court has complied. Code of Civil Procedure, Section 249, paragraph two. Even disputed land is part of the road in the village where the defendant is responsible for the allocation of land and is in the mortgage to benefit the land allocated in accordance with the Announcement of the Revolution 286, but the only mortgage. But the owner. The property must accept certain property which affects its property or to refrain from using certain rights existing in the ownership of the property for the benefit of other real estate. And the proprietors of the priests do not make any act that will cause the burden. Reduce or reduce the convenience. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1387 and 1389 only. Ownership of property remains the proprietor. There is no law prohibiting property owners to sell or sell the transfer of ownership in any way. The defendant as the land dispute is entitled to sell the land dispute. The contract to buy and sell the land dispute is not void. Defendant must transfer the land dispute to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1802/2549.

Insurance by Civil and Commercial Code Section 887 is a non-life insurance. Section 3 of Section 2 of the Age of Liability, the liability of the recipient of the liability. Must follow Civil and Commercial Code Section 882, which is a general chapter in Part 1 of the same category. The age specified by the specific. It can not be compared with life insurance, which is provided in other categories and can not bring the general age under Section 193/30 to apply to the case of insurance.

The claim to the insurer liable for the claim. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 887, paragraph two states that "the person who is entitled to receive compensation as they should be from the insurer directly ..." The plaintiff has the right to sue the defendant 4 to be liable for the loss without. Must be willing to take advantage of the contract. The age of prosecution under Section 882 paragraph one, which prohibits the lawsuit after the expiration of two years from the date of the accident, it is specifically provided that from the date of the accident. Can not apply the general principle of age under Section 193/12 to apply to this case or be interpreted otherwise. So when the plaintiff sued the case two years from the date of the case of the plaintiff in the defendant. The 4th is out.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 667/2549.

Even overdraft and overdraft facilities, which are required by the nature of the current contract, will not be available. The current contract is a unique contract. The contract will continue to exist, it must be constantly spread in the account and within a reasonable period. The fact is that the money was taken into account to deduct the last account on March 14, 1983. There is no account anymore, until the death of the death for nearly 12 years, that is. The intention was to terminate the contract with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a financial institution is obliged to monitor the account of the customer at all times how the movement. When it appears that the customer, the customer of the plaintiff has no account movement. The plaintiff will have to call or terminate the contract in a timely manner. This is not an opportunity to take interest in a long time. It can be said that the plaintiff did not act in good faith. The contract is considered to be dissolved from the date the plaintiff intended to terminate the contract with the plaintiff by default is March 14, 1983, which was the last day of the payment of the account. The claim of the plaintiff under the overdraft agreement has occurred since then. The claim is based on 10 years of age, the plaintiff sued the case on February 5, 2539 after 10 years, the debt under the current contract is terminated. However, when it appears that P. land and buildings are registered mortgage to secure the debt in the amount of 5,500,000 baht with interest at the rate of 15 percent per year with an agreement that if the plaintiff's mortgage is not enough money. The debt is allowed to be taken from other assets until the end of the contract, although the debt under the current account will be terminated. If the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/27 and Section 745, the plaintiff, the mortgagee will be obliged to pay off the mortgaged property, even when the mortgage is insured, then it is expired. However, it will not be possible to pay overdue interest for more than five years. And it is mandatory, but only mortgaged property. I can not find any other property. Although under the mortgage agreement will require the removal of other assets until the end. If the mortgage is not enough money.

(3 rd meeting, 2005)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 142/2549.

Claims made by the compromise agreement is 10 years of age under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/32, regardless of whether the original claim will determine the age of the defendant's first and second violation of the compromise agreement on October 10. 2539 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on September 29, 1999 not yet over 10 years, so it does not expire.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8712/2548.

Provisions of Section 193/33 and Section 193/34 of the Civil and Commercial Code In spite of the age of the claim, salary is the same, but Section 193/34 (9) is the case where an employee invokes money earned from work under a contract of employment from an employer. In the case where a person who is not an employee is entitled to a salary or other kind of payment From those who have to pay. The payment is scheduled for a period. The plaintiff, an employee, sued the defendant, the employer, to pay allowances and accommodation, which is entitled under the employment contract, is two years under Section 193/34 (9), not five years under Section 193/33 (4)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8007/2548.

Debt arising from the fact that the debtor, which is a juristic person, has the objective to operate the hotel business, purchased kitchenware with installation from the creditor. It is the action to earn a profit in the business of the debtor. The age of 5 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (5) In accordance with Section 193/34 (1)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7656/2548.

The defendant made a letter of credit to the plaintiff on May 13, 2540, as a loan to the plaintiff 60,000 baht, the result of the loan as a letter and a letter of credit. The loan does not have a specific legal age. So it is 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, the book has no debt in itself, but the effect on the old debt stumbled. From May 13, 1997 to October 24, 2001, which is the date the plaintiff sued not more than 10 years, so it does not terminate.

The debtor receives the debt is not the case after the debt status of the debt after the age of 2 years, according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/35.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4507/2547 Claims on the meaning of Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/35 must be in the case of debtors are debtors before. Subsequent debt debt. After that, the debtor has been given a liability by evidence. When debt is owed for a 10-year time, while the defendant acknowledged that the debt to the plaintiff in the letter is not expired, so not in accordance with the. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/35, which is valid for 2 years, but must be 10 years from the time of receipt of debt under Civil and Commercial Code Section 193/14 and 193/15

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3314/2549.

Even the plaintiff is a trader called the value of the delivery, which has a two-year maturity. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1), but at the end of Section 193/34 (1), the case is an exception that is not in the two-year age limit. Unless it is done for the affairs of the debtor itself. It must consider the business of the debtor to conduct business in any case. The defendant bought fuel from the plaintiff to the passenger car by. Both defendants engage in passenger and cargo transport. It can be considered that the two defendants purchased fuel from the plaintiff to use in the business of the two defendants, if the case with the exception is not in the age of two years, according to the end of Section 193/34 (1), then. Do not take into account that the two defendants purchased oil from the plaintiff to bring. Distributed or used to produce goods for sale? According to the two defendants. The plaintiff's claim is based on the age of five years under section 193/33 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4342/2548.

The creditor filed a claim for debt service debt in law. This is the case where the creditor who is a legal professional charge. Work done to the debtor is 2 years old under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (16), without the need to be the case in which the success of each case and the case is not the pay is the salary and money. In the same way that the payment is for a period of 5 years under Section 193/33 (4), and even if it is paid for a monthly period, it is not a salary. offer Employee under labor contract

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4858/2548.

The plaintiff hired the defendant to build the road. The contract is a contract of the plaintiff made a payment. The value of the building to the store instead of the defendant. The plaintiff then deducted the money paid to the plaintiff from the plaintiff. Defendant owes the plaintiff. The plaintiff is forced to pay the defendant as follows: not the plaintiff. Commercial or industrial workers who pay their own advances. Pay in the work to the employer. Employer under Section 193/34 (1), which is 2 years old, but the case is the plaintiff is the employer to pay the money he has paid in advance. Contractor from the contractor There is no specific age law. The age of 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5826/2548.

The plaintiff engaged in a car repair business, which is a contract with the defendant, which is. Non-life insurance bearers who are liable for damages or repair of the car of the insured against the defendant, which is the business of the defendant. The plaintiff, a trader, called for the car repairs of the insured. With the defendant, the defendant is called to pay or the value of work. To do business for the defendant, which is a debtor. If the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (5) and Section 193/34 (1) are valid for 5 years.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6198/2548.

The plaintiff is a trader called the value of the delivery of the defendant. The defendant is engaged in trade by buying goods from the plaintiff and then selling them to another customer. Such trading is made to the business of the debtor. Exceptions follow. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1) at the end of the age of 5 years under Section 193/33 (5) The cost of shipping the goods to the plaintiff advances instead of the defendant, it happened. Because the plaintiff sold the goods to the defendant. It is the money that the plaintiff trades to advance the business of the debtor itself to the exception under Section 193/34 (1) at the end not the money that the carrier has advanced under Article 193/34 ( 3) Debt that the plaintiff advances to the age of 5 years under Section 193/33 (5) as well.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6786/2548.

The term "wages or other benefits" which the employee uses to claim from the employer under Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (9) means the pay under Section 575, which is the right under the employment contract. But the right to compensation for unfair dismissal. Including the right to receive compensation and compensation instead of advance notice. Employee claims from employers. The rights arising from termination after the termination of employment. Not the right contract. Not subject to Section 193/34 (9), so it is valid for 10 years under Section 193/30.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1584/2548.

On request, open a current account and overdraft facility. Credit card Clearly stated The purpose is to pay for goods and services. The credit card used. Including to withdraw cash from your automatic withdrawal account. These are all transactions related to the use of credit cards. The opening of a current account is not used to open a normal withdrawal. If it is a current account that is used to allow the defendant to pay debts arising from the use. Credit card, but only one particular. It is not the case that the plaintiff's accuser agreed to cut off the debt, but the business. Between the plaintiff and the defendant was offset. The remainder of the outstanding contract is the nature of the current account contract. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 856, so that the debt is not overdue or debt under the current account, the plaintiff did not pay to the creditor of the defendant. Or the plaintiff allowed the defendant to take the credit card to withdraw cash from the deposit. Automated and then charged by the defendant in the plaintiff is considered that the business operator to undertake various tasks. The money that was issued before the advance of the nature of business credit card. 2 years under Section 193/34 (7)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3830/2547.

The plaintiff's service uses a credit card to the members for a fee. The plaintiff is a business to receive the work for the members and the plaintiff paid the members of the creditors to replace it. Including the plaintiff allowed the defendant to take the credit card to withdraw cash from the automatic deposit and then charge the member later to take the advance payment before the case is considered that the plaintiff is a business operator. Get jobs. Get the money to advance. Claims on such debt is 2 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (7) This case, even the defendant will pay the last time on September 27, 2543, but the plaintiff has not yet. Defend the credit card or terminate the credit card. The facts show that after the defendant finally settled, the defendant also brought. Credit card used several times. Last time on November 5, 2000 the plaintiff paid the defendant instead. The plaintiff sent the bill to the defendant. The defendant must pay by December 12, 2000 as follows: The plaintiff may be required to enforce claims from the date of maturity. Not the last defendant to pay the debt. The plaintiff sued the case on October 29, 2002 has not yet passed a two-year lawsuit plaintiff does not terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3856/2547.

The defendant bought the goods from the plaintiff to be sold to the customer again. Such transactions are made to the business of the debtor, the defendant itself under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 194/34 (1) at the end, which is more meaningful than the purchase to sell. Only It also covers cases where the debtor may have to do something. Modification of products before being sold to another class. The nature of the occupation. It is not a purchase. To consume Term of claim of the plaintiff is 5 years, not 2 years.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6180/2547.

Claims on the value of goods sold from the buyer of the merchant are different in accordance with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1), and Section 193/33 (5), ie two years of age. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1) and five years, except in section 193/34 (1) at the end "... unless it is for the business of the debtor itself." The exception to this is to bring the business or work to the buyer. The trade is then considered with the goods purchased. Does the buyer bring the product into the business or work that the buyer makes a trade of? If the buyer brings the purchased goods into the business that the buyer has engaged in the trade. Claims in the debt of the seller's merchandise are five years. There are restrictions that the goods traded must be the product of the entrepreneur. Commercially produced for sale to specific buyers. Even though it is a commodity traded in the market, it is subject to the provisions of The two laws are the same for the word "business", which means that any action taken to do so is possible. Occupation Not limited to animal husbandry for sale or for sale. Or to produce a new product. The defendant is a limited company operating a hotel and restaurant business. And sell food to the guests of the hotel's defendants. The goods that the defendant bought from the plaintiff was a consumer of cups, dishes, plates, dishes used to eat and serve food in the dining room as part of the business of the defendant. The defendant was that the defendant purchased the product as a device to provide services. Business of the defendant The case is therefore in force. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1) at the end of the claim of the plaintiff is five years.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6476/2547.

The plaintiff is a state enterprise established by The Metropolitan Waterworks Act, 1967, under the said Act. Section 6 states that "to establish a water supply called. "Metropolitan Waterworks Authority" has the following objectives: (2) Produce, distribute and distribute tap water in Bangkok metropolitan area. Nonthaburi (3) To conduct other business related to or benefit to the water supply. " The plaintiff has the objective of distributing water. The term "trader" under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1) is a wording that changes from the words. The Civil and Commercial Code, Section 165 (1), used to be the word "merchant", so the word "merchant" is more meaningful than the word "merchant", although the plaintiff is not a merchant, but it is considered a trader. Implies Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1). The plaintiff may enforce the right to claim water from the date of the unit. Tap each time the receipt appears. The plaintiff sued the water bill, which called for the work done over two years, the claim of the plaintiff is terminated.

The Supreme Court ruled that 6504/2547.

The amount of 100 baht in the savings account of the defendant has long since the defendant defaulted on the first payment. According to the credit card contract, the plaintiff deducted this money immediately. The plaintiff released a long time ago to pass a year and then deduct the debt. This is the case. In addition to not exercise the plaintiff's rights under the agreement. It is an act that shows that. The plaintiff has the legal right to be a channel for the plaintiff to benefit. The interest is between them. And to keep the stumble age. Regardless of the damage the other party will receive. This is a fraudulent exercise. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 5 does not stop the age of interruption. The plaintiff claims the plaintiff's credit card over 2 years, the case is terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 751/2547.

The plaintiff is the operator of utilities. Metropolitan Electricity Authority Act The plaintiff is a state enterprise. Will the implementation of the objectives of the budget be funded under Section 12 (3), or is the relationship between the plaintiff and the state. The plaintiff's property is not in the liability of enforcement under Section 14 is the legal relationship of the plaintiff is a state agency over the private law enforcement only against the property of the plaintiff. For the purpose of supplying and distributing electricity to Citizens of the plaintiff. This is a legal relationship between the private sector, especially this case is a lawsuit. Objective debt The plaintiff falls as a trader. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1) When the defendant defaulted, the plaintiff may demand that the defendant pay the debt from December 23, 2540, the age began on December 24, 1997. The plaintiff sued to pay the current. Electricity used through a normal electrical unit. The claim on work made on June 16, 2000 would exceed two years.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6683/2545.

Provincial Electricity Authority The plaintiff is a state enterprise with the objective of distributing energy. Electricity for the benefit of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is a trader under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/34 (1) The plaintiff's right to demand electricity from the overdue consumer is 2 years.

Under the power purchase agreement, the defendant will pay the electricity to the plaintiff on a monthly basis. The first defendant's arrears were due in May 1995. The date of commencement of June 1, 1995, which is the date that the plaintiff may enforce such claims. When the plaintiff sued the electricity bill on January 28, 2542 overdue for more than two years, the plaintiff has terminated. And the plaintiff has no right to sue the defendant 2 as a guarantor of liability.

Posted in: