5/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 56 (No. 3651) 2006
Sangvol et al. vs. Darawong et al.

Re: Land Ownership; Cancellation of Land Transaction

The plaintiff filed a complaint that she was the owner of a piece of disputed the Thailand land.  The plaintiff authorized the first defendant, who is the plaintiff's mother, to withdraw a mortgage on the disputed land.  However the first defendant did more than she was authorized and legally registered the land in her name.  The first defendant later sold the land to the second defendant and the second defendant mortgaged the land to the third defendant.

The plaintiff has requested to have the legal action between herself and the first defendant, and between the first defendant and the second defendant, and the mortgage between the second defendant and the third defendant, canceled.  This is to exercise the right to take back property from persons who do not have the right to hold the thailand community property according to Section 1334 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

The three defendants dispute the right of the plaintiff according to Section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code.  Although the plaintiff does not have the right to sue the first defendant because suing a parent is prohibited according to Section 1542 of the Civil and Commercial Code, this is a factor only between the plaintiff and the first defendant.  The plaintiff has the right to sue and bring legal proceedings against the second and third defendant.

5/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 139 (No. 4799) 2006
Customs Department vs. Tor Thong Chai (1999) Co. Ltd

Re: Interest; Loan Agreements

In the agreement which the defendant made with the plaintiff according to a petition to transfer tax rights, if there is dishonesty when receiving a tax refund and the plaintiff suffers damages, regardless of the reason, the defendant will be responsible and there will be no controversy.  It is the intention of the defendant to show that there will be no dispute in receiving taxes.  In the event that the transfer of the right to receive a tax refund results in dishonesty or produces losses for the plaintiff, regardless of the reason, the defendant is the responsible party and will be responsible to the plaintiff without dispute.  In this event, it is not a conditional agreement.  The debtor must be responsible for fraud or negligence according to Section 373 of the Civil and Commercial Code.  This is an agreement of the type which law does not forbid therefore the agreement is enforceable and is not invalid.

In the agreement there is no fixed time period in which the defendant must pay the debt.  The defendant must be responsible for interest when breaking the agreement according to Section 224 of the first paragraph of the Civil and Commercial Code.  The plaintiff issued a notice for the defendant to pay taxes without dispute to the plaintiff within 15 days from the day in which the notice was sent.  The defendant received the notice on 23 January 2004 and the time period in which the defendant must pay the debt ended on 7 February 2004.  Therefore the defendant has defaulted on the agreement and must be responsible for paying interest to the plaintiff from 8 February 2004 until the debt is paid.