12/2550 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 173 (No. 7426) 2007
Ms. Aree Ruang-eim vs. Mrs. Boonchoo Thongkum

Re: Lease

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to demand the outstanding payment for a Thailand lease including interest up until the date of filing the lawsuit of 163,237.71 baht. She also requested payment of interest at a rate of 7.5 percent per year of the original outstanding amount of 163,000 baht, calculated from the date the lawsuit was filed until all outstanding payment was received by the plaintiff.

The defendant defaulted on payment and submitted an answer to the court.

The trial court dismissed the case.

The plaintiff appealed.

District 2 Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision and ordered the defendant pay 163,237.71 baht, including interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per year of the original amount of 163,000 baht, calculated from the date the lawsuit was filed until all payment was received by the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court pronounced judgment as follows: “The defendant leased land located in the vicinity of the plaintiff’s market for commercial purposes at a rate of 250 baht per day. The defendant defaulted on payment from the month of January 2539 B.E. (1996 A.D.) until the month of March 2542 B.E. (1999 A.D.) of 163,000 baht in total.

According to the Jor 2 and Jor 3 Lease Agreement, the plaintiff demanded the defendant pay off the outstanding lease obligations. However, the defendant, by signing on the Jor 4 document, requested the outstanding balance be reduced to 70,000 baht. The plaintiff did not consent to the request.

The issue is to examine the Jor 4 document which states: ‘I, Mrs. Boonchoo Thongkum (defendant), acknowledge that I am truly in debt concerning the lease of land of Khun Aree Ruang-eim (plaintiff) according to statements of the lawyer who provided notification. However, Mrs. Boonchoo (defendant) requests the outstanding balance be reduced to 70,000 baht. Consequently, an agreement has not been reached at this time. The lawyer must inquire with Mrs. Aree (plaintiff), the creditor, as to her   wishes. I have therefore signed in front of witnesses.’

Can this be deemed evidence for the lease and for lawfully filing an execution of judgment with the court? It shall be deemed that the content in the Jor 4 document indicates that the defendant acknowledged that she leased the land from the plaintiff and had outstanding lease obligations to be paid. When the defendant signed her name on such document, the Jor 4 document shall be considered evidence for the lease and can be used to institute an execution of judgment by the court according to section 538 of the Civil and Commercial Code. District 2 Appellate Court’s judgment is proper. The defendant’s appeal has no basis.”

Judgment affirmed.