Supreme Court No. 7471/2556

The defendant is a retail and wholesale department store of consumer goods. Inevitably, various services must be given importance, especially services related to parking spaces, which are considered an important factor in the decision of customers whether to purchase products or use other services or not, although the Act controls Building Act 1979, Section 8 (9), 34 stipulates that the defendant, the owner of the building, must provide a parking area to facilitate traffic. But the defendant must also take into account and is responsible for the safety of customers in both life and property. Not letting customers be careful or take their own risks. The fact that the defendant used to arrange for the distribution of cards for customers' cars entering the mall, which is a rather concise method. Because without a pass If the car is taken out, it must be inspected by the defendant's employee. But at the time of the incident, the aforementioned method was canceled by using closed-circuit cameras instead. Causing the criminal to enter and exit the parking lot of the department store Of the defendant and car theft more easily. Although the defendant announced that he would not be responsible for any loss or damage, including the fact that the customer was aware of the cancellation of the parking ticket distribution. But still bring the car into the parking lot It is a requirement of the defendant, but unilaterally does not result in the exclusion of liability for violations of the defendant.

Supreme Court No. 5302/2538

The plaintiff said in the complaint about the actions of the defendant which breached the contract of employment. causes damage to the plaintiff The plaintiff therefore demanded damages from the defendant for several items. But the plaintiff thought only 400,000 baht by attaching a photo of the townhouse. Mortar grinder, remaining construction materials, workers' homes, as well as buildings under the defendant's construction project on Teparak Road, came to the end of the lawsuit, although he did not describe when the plaintiff began construction. The work is completed until the installment of the remaining construction materials. The amount and price, and the plaintiff's employment for the construction of Thepharak Is there any evidence It's not a vague lawsuit. because the aforementioned facts are not the state of charges No need to mention in the lawsuit, both details that the plaintiff can attest in the consideration. The defendant's lawsuit was correct and the plaintiff's complaint was not ambiguous. In the event that the work has just begun according to the contract Defendant did not want the plaintiff to do the construction. Termination of contract It cited the reason that the plaintiff left the job only. which is not over the completion period of construction And the plaintiff himself did not abandon the job. As for the plaintiff's wrong construction, wrong academic principles, he could not hear it as follows: when the contract has not yet expired And the defendant's employer saw that if provided The plaintiff's next construction will be damaged because the job delays the defendant's termination of the contract, must notify the plaintiff of the timeframe to comply with the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 387, but the defendant did not do so. Therefore can not terminate the contract for such reasons The plaintiff asked for further construction and the defendant refused by hiring others to continue construction and to terminate the contract. It is considered that the plaintiff is not at fault of the contract. But it's about the defendant exercising the right to terminate the contract without like. and must assume that the defendant is at fault of the contract itself In case of hiring when the defendant's employer has terminated the contract itself by the plaintiff, the contractor did not breach the contract. The defendant is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff for any damage caused, but the termination of the contract under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 605 of the damages that the defendant had to demolish, repair and pay for the construction of the house until completion. When the plaintiff is not at fault, the defendant has no right to claim from the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant and counterclaimed. The plaintiff gave a solution to the counterclaim. The two lower courts ruled that the plaintiff won the lawsuit without a judgment dismissing the counterclaim. The Supreme Court deems it appropriate to correct it.

Supreme Court No. 4932/2541

Rental deposit under the lease agreement requires that the plaintiff, the lessor, has the right to bring the outstanding rent or other outstanding liabilities to deduct the rental guarantee when the defendant tenant moves the property and servants out of the premises. already rented And the plaintiff has the right to seize the entire amount of the rental deposit in the event that the defendant fails to terminate the lease in writing for a period of 3 months in advance, which indicates that the rental deposit is a security deposit for damages related to unpaid rent debt. Other liabilities are outstanding and are insurance against damage to the breach of the lease as well. Rental insurance is a penalty because the defendant promised the plaintiff that he would spend some amount when he fails to pay the debt properly. When the defendant defaulted by the defendant did not terminate the lease in advance in writing for a period of 3 months, the rental deposit is subject to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 379, 381 the plaintiff shall have the right to forfeit or claim the deposit. rentable

Compensation for the termination of the lease before the expiration of the lease stated that if the defendant terminated the lease before the expiration of the contract. The defendant must pay compensation for termination of the contract before the term is equal to 4 months of rent, plus that separately. It's about the defendant has promised to spend some money. When they do not pay their debt properly. Compensation for termination of the lease before expiration is a penalty in Section 379381, the plaintiff has the right to forfeit or claim compensation for termination of the lease before expiration as well.

Rental insurance and compensation for termination of the lease before the expiration of such payments are penalties in the event that the defendant does not pay the debt properly, although the lease will specify the name of the money in both cases where the plaintiff has the right. Forfeiture or retrieval is different due to different reasons for forfeiture or retrieval. But the important reason that is the beginning cause the plaintiff has the right to forfeit or call for it must arise from the defendant's termination of the lease before expiration. In the event that the defendant terminated the lease without prior written notice for a period of 3 months, causing the plaintiff to have the right to forfeit the rental deposit. It is that the plaintiff has the right to forfeit the penalty increased from the plaintiff's right to forfeit or claim compensation for terminating the lease before maturity. It is not that the plaintiff has the right to forfeit or claim compensation for terminating the contract before the expiration of the contract as specified in the lease. It can be considered that the rental insurance is a redundant penalty for the compensation for terminating the lease before maturity. Because of the penalties in both cases, they are insurance for damages in advance when breaching the lease due to the defendant's failure to pay the debt properly, therefore, the penalty that the plaintiff has the right to forfeit or claim such when considering the plaintiff's interest in everything. Lawful about the damage that the defendant terminated the lease before maturity. It turned out to be an excessively high penalty. There is a reason to reduce the penalty by a reasonable amount according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, only the compensation for termination of the lease before the expiration of the lease can only be adjusted in one case.

Business damages that the plaintiff claims are damages related to the decoration of the ground floor building for the defendant to make a temporary office. And damages for termination of the contract that the plaintiff must pay to P. As a result of the plaintiff having to let the defendant rent the 7th floor area are all damages that the plaintiff has paid or must pay before the plaintiff. to enter into a lease agreement with the defendant When the plaintiff enters into a lease with the defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to set these damages in the lease in the form of a deposit or penalty, or set a higher rental rate, as the plaintiff may assign the defendant to the tenant liable. In this case, it is not compensation for damage as would normally occur to non-payment of debt. Or for damage caused, but special circumstances as provided in Section 222 because compensation for damage that the plaintiff will be entitled to claim in case the defendant breaches the lease under Section 222, it must be the damage caused. up after the defendant breached the lease And the plaintiff suffered damage from the defendant's breach of the lease as well. The compensation for the plaintiff's lack of income from the interest of the deposit that the defendant must place to the plaintiff in the amount of 8,500,000 baht under the lease, Section 378 has specifically prescribed liability. The provisions of this section does not provide that the plaintiff has the right to demand interest on the deposit that the defendant must place against the plaintiff, so the provisions of section 222 may not apply to the defendant liable to the plaintiff again.

Although the amount of 1,700,000 baht is the money paid by the defendant to the plaintiff under the lease agreement, which is part of the lease agreement. and in the lease will be specified as a deposit But this amount is not considered a deposit as defined in Section 377 because it is not the money that the defendant must pay the plaintiff to enter into a lease agreement as part of the lease only. In such a case, the provisions regarding the deposit cannot be applied. Must comply with the terms of the lease specified when the lease document No. Mon. 6 does not specify that the plaintiff forfeit this part of the defendant. but has stated that The Lessor shall return such deposit to the Lessee as soon as the telephone rental fee has been fully billed. After this contract is terminated for any reason In addition, to apply the principle of rent insurance to be used mutatis mutandis, even if the lease was terminated because the defendant was at fault. The plaintiff must return this amount to the defendant. The plaintiff would have the right to use the telephone maintenance fee to be deducted from the deposit. and must return the remaining amount to the defendant

Supreme Court No. 2210/2544

Despite the fact that the defendant parked the car and the collision occurred in the shoulder on the left side of the road in a way that does not obstruct traffic. But the defendant parked the car at dusk without turning on the light or using the light as specified in the ministerial regulations to signal the driver to see the parked car. Until causing the deceased to drive a motorcycle into the rear of the car parked by the defendant causing the deceased to death As a result of the negligence of the defendant, regardless of whether the deceased has negligence in any matter, it must be considered that the cause of the deceased's death was caused by the negligence of the defendant as well, so it is a direct result of the defendant's negligence. Except what must be done to prevent that effect. Looking for a direct result of the defendant's driving is not The defendant was therefore not guilty of driving recklessly under the Land Traffic Act, Section 43(4),157, would be guilty of acting recklessly causing death to others under Section 291 of the Criminal Code.

Offense of driving in a way that causes damage to other people or property Then stop the car and provide assistance as appropriate under the Road Traffic Act, Section 78 requires the driver in the way that causes damage to persons or property of others must stop and provide assistance as appropriate, including showing and report the incident to a nearby official immediately, whether it is the fault of the driver or not, but the driver who is considered to be the cause of damage must be the driver who is driving If not in the case of the driver parking or stopping the car, therefore, it cannot be considered that the defendant is the one who caused the damage, which will be an offense under Section 78 of the Road Traffic Act.

Supreme Court No. 9528/2557

The plaintiff's petition that The plaintiff requested a petition to challenge the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the issue of law that the plaintiff would raise the prescription of the claim to compel the 1st defendant to accept the central expenses only for the part that does not expire. By claiming that the plaintiff was the buyer of the property from the auction. Although the condominium juristic person has the right to demand that the applicant register the transfer of ownership of the condominium to pay debts arising from the debt of common expenses according to Condominium Act 1979, Section 29, but when the said debt is 5 years old, the plaintiff has the right to request only repayment of the debt no later than 5 years. Court of Appeal The plaintiff's petition is a lawful petition.

Common expenses that co-owners have a duty to pay to the juristic person of the condominium, even though the Condominium Act B.E. The Condominium Act 1979 does not specifically prescribe a statute of limitations for the use of claims for such money. It must be in accordance with the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code when, according to the regulations of the first defendant, required to pay common expenses on a monthly basis. but did not pay, so it is considered as an accrual Which has an age of 5 years according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/33 (4) has already provided Fines and surcharges arising from non-payment of common expenses are equipment debts of common expenses, therefore, the statute of limitations is 5 years, similar to the principal debt. It is not the case that the Civil and Commercial Code or other laws do not prescribe an statute of limitations, which must bring the statute of limitations of 10 years under Section 193/30 to apply in any way.

In exercising the right to demand payment of debt, Section 193/9 states that if not enforced within the period specified by law. The claim shall be terminated. which is obligatory to creditors who have to exercise their claims within the period specified by law Because otherwise, the debtor shall have the right to refuse to pay debt under the claim that can be terminated under Section 193/10 and Section 193/29 of the Civil and Commercial Code stipulating that when not Raising the age as a fight The court cannot refer to prescription age as a ground for dismissal. Does not mean only that creditors have to claim first. The debtor has the right to refuse by raising the statute of limitations as a defense only. But if the debtor filed a lawsuit for debt repayment by requesting payment according to the creditor's right to be entitled as there is under the period of prescription. Would be equal to a refusal to pay debt under the creditor's claims by raising the statute of limitations as a defense. because it results in the creditor not being able to enforce the repayment of the debt beyond the time specified by law, as well as defending the case in the event that the debtor is sued The court therefore raised the statute of limitations to make a right decision.

The plaintiff is the only buyer of the property, not the debtor who owes the common expenses. But the plaintiff has an obligation to pay the outstanding debt to the defendant before transferring ownership of the unit accordingly. Condominium Act 1979, sections 18, 29 and 41 that are specified as conditions for auction sale according to the announcement of the executing officer and as required by law. Would have the same effect as the plaintiff has entered into an agreement to pay debts to third parties instead of the debtor under Section 374 that the plaintiff would like to raise the statute of limitations against the first defendant who has benefited from the contract accordingly. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 376, when debts for common expenses Fines and surcharges are accrued, with an age of 5 years and the plaintiff raised it as a defense. The plaintiff is therefore still liable for payment of central expenses. Fines and surcharges payable to the 1st defendant in the past not more than 5 years for fines and surcharges that the plaintiff did not request the court to have a judgment in what manner? But when the plaintiff has a duty to pay The Court of First Instance would rule that the plaintiff was liable to a defendant that was not more than or beyond what appears in the indictment. And according to the regulations of the first defendant who set a fine of 10 percent per month of the amount owed. It is regarded as determining the penalty of Section 381, paragraph one, which, if exceeded by the court, can be reduced by a reasonable amount under section 383, paragraph one.