7/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 166 (No. 6896) 2006
Sanya Buadee vs. Srituan Sonjai

Re: Inheritance

Although the petitioner is not a heir of the deceased, the deceased has two children, So and the intervener, who were born to a wife of the Thailand marriage which was not legally registered.  The Thailand house registration specifies that Lo is the deceased's child, they use the same last name and Lo lived with the deceased until the day that he died.  This means that the deceased did acknowledge Lo as his child.  Lo is an illegitimate child acknowledged by the deceased and a descendent of the deceased the same as legal children according to Section 1627 of the Civil and Commercial Code.  Lo is a heir with the same rights to inherit as the intervener according to Section 1629(1) of the Civil and Commercial Code.  When the deceased died the estate of the deceased devolved to Lo.  When Lo died, Lo's portion of the estate devolved to Por, Lo's mother.  After Por died, Por's estate devolved to Por's statuary heir.  The petitioner is the legal child of Por and a person with interest in the estate.  Therefore the petitioner has the right to require the court to determine an administer of the estate according to Section 1713 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

7/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 166 (No. 6775) 2006
Department of Customs vs. Tawee Chock Industrial Co., Ltd.

Re: False Representation

The first defendant made a false representation on a custom's form that products were not being exported abroad.  The first defendant therefore does not have the right to receive a tax reimbursement and does not have the right to transfer the right to a tax refund to another party.  The actions of the first defendant were intentional and illegal and caused damages to the plaintiff.  This is a wrongful act according to Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code.  The first defendant must compensate the plaintiff according to the value of the taxes and because the compensation is late the defendant is also responsible for interest from the day of the wrongful act, which is the day the second defendant received the tax card from the plaintiff, according to the first paragraph of Section 206 and Section 224 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

7/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 195 (No. 7031) 2006
Nivorn Reangsri vs. Pratin Boonsong

Re: Marriage Agreement

There is an agreement only that Wo will graduate, ordain as a monk and then Wo and the third defendant will marry and live together as husband and wife.  This demonstrates that both sides did not intend to enter into a legal marriage, which means registering a marriage according to Section 1457 of the Civil and Commercial Code.  It may be considered that both parties did not enter into an agreement to do the above.  It is not possible for the plaintiff to request a return of money, a ring, and golden necklace which he says were given as a marriage price and an engagement gift because marriage prices and engagement gifts must be given with the intention that a marriage will be registered according to the law.  The plaintiff does not have the right to request the return of the above assets from the three defendants.