Supreme is interesting.

📘 Supreme No. 139 / 2569

In the Red No. 1250 / 2022 case of the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff narrated that the second defendant presented himself openly to show that he had a relationship with the plaintiff's husband, which the plaintiff did not consent or agree to, and that the second defendant knew that the plaintiff had a legitimate wife and one child together, and that the second defendant was asking the plaintiff to pay compensation with interest to the plaintiff, as a lawsuit to exercise his right as a spouse. Section 1523, paragraph 2, The plaintiff in this case sued that Defendant I unilaterally transferred the marriage money between the plaintiff and Defendant I from Defendant I's deposit account to Defendant II by affection, which was not a reasonable grant of the family's rights to charity, social or ethical purposes, without the plaintiff's knowledge of the matter and without the plaintiff's consent, hereby revoked the law of such grant between the two defendants and granted Defendant II to transfer the money with interest back to the plaintiff, in order to exercise the right as a spouse to unilaterally revoke the law that the spouse had committed unilaterally or without the consent of the other spouse. In Section 1480, the plea based on the charges in the case is different from that in the Red Number case of the Court of First Instance, even in the case before the plaintiff described in the indictment that during the two defendants' association, Defendant I transferred the marriage money from Defendant I's deposit account to Defendant II several times, which is the same amount of money that the plaintiff asked to revoke the deposition of the deposition between the two defendants and to have Defendant II reimburse the plaintiff as the case, but it is only a description to the court of the damage from Defendant II's disclosure to show that he was in a relationship. With the plaintiff's husband, neither the plaintiff has an application to revoke the forensics of the grant or request the return of the property, so the case is not a judicial process or an issue that has been ruled out. The plaintiff has sued the two defendants in this case in respect of the request to revoke the forensics of the grant between the two defendants that the 1st defendant transferred money from the bank account a. Of the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant, therefore, it does not constitute a retrial of the Red Number case at NCPO 1250 / 2022 of the Court of First Instance, as provided for in Section 144.

The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's assertion of lawful affection is the manner in which the assertion is made is valid, but the second defendant's claim of ratification must also be of a contractual nature, which is different. Therefore, the plaintiff's indictment cannot be heard as a ratification, as the second defendant claims. When the facts in this class are heard that the confession between the two defendants is a marital property arrangement without the consent of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has the right to revoke the confession between the two defendants.

The forensics of giving between defendant 1 and defendant 2 is valid in accordance with the law, even if the plaintiff does not give his consent, until the plaintiff has sued to revoke the forensics of the giving, and the court has a judgment to revoke the forensics of the giving. Therefore, the Court of Appeal gives the plaintiff the right to charge interest from the date of the transfer of the first defendant to the second defendant in the amount of Baht 1,164,731 and to charge interest from the day after the date of the indictment in the amount of Baht 267,000. It cannot be considered that the second defendant defaulted on that day until the court has decided to revoke the giving forensics. Default onwards until payment is completed. From when to start charging interest, it is a legal issue of public order. The Supreme Court has the power to decide.

🔍 Remarks

In this case, the law of giving between defendant 1 and defendant 2 is valid in accordance with the law, even if the plaintiff does not give consent, until the plaintiff has sued to revoke the law of giving, and the court has a judgment to revoke the law of giving. Therefore, the interest of default on the debt begins from the date of the court's judgment to revoke the law of giving onwards.

# lawstudents # Jurisprudence # Bar Association # Legal summary # Civil procedure law