12/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 53 (No. 4145) 2005
Boonyun Sunthorrawat vs. Umpai Treesuwom

Re: Signatory Authority (Fingerprint)

Although the finger-print of the plaintiff on the Power of Attorney did not show the pattern of a finger, there was a description underneath the marking in ink that identified it as the finger-print of a person. This is evidence that it is a finger-print and not an ink smudge. According to Paragraph 2, Section 9 of the Civil and Commercial Code, a fingerprint on paper accompanied by two signatures of witnesses is a recognized signature. Furthermore the witnesses testified on behalf of the plaintiff that the ink marking was made by the plaintiff's right thumb, a statement that could verified due to the particular nature of human fingerprints. Therefore the finger-print on the Power of Attorney was legitimate.

12/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 71 (No. 4959) 2005
Supog Prasert vs. Chalerm Prasert

Re: Inheritance; Co-Ownership

The plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners of a piece of inherited the Thailand land.  When the court passed a judgment stating that the heirs must divide the land according to Section 1364 of the Civil and Commercial Code, the plaintiffs and defendants could not reach an agreement.  The Court interviewed both sides to determine if they could reach an agreement.  The plaintiffs and defendants could not agree on the division of the land.  The Court ruled that the land must be sold with the money to be divided between the plaintiffs and the defendants who are co-owners of the land.

12/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 63 (No. 4865) 2005
Jomrat Mhodee vs. Tussanee Mantim

Re: Loan Agreements

The defendant allowed the plaintiff to borrow money without written evidence of the loan.  The defendant took the plaintiff's certified documents into his possession; however, this is not evidence of a loan.  Although the defendant claims to be holding the plaintiff's certified document as evidence of the loan, talking hold of a document is not evidence of a loan and furthermore the defendant does not have the right to hold the documents in his possession. The defendant must return the certified document to the plaintiff.

12/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 127 (No. 5829) 2005
Krungthai Bank Co., Ltd. Vs. Argsuk Kasaitsin

Re: Execution of Judgment

The Court passed a judgment requiring the defendants to repay a debt to the plaintiff in a stipulated amount of time.  The first payment was due on 1 October 1991.  If the defendants defaulted on a payment, the plaintiff would have the authority to enforce the execution of judgment beginning on 1 November 1991.  Although the defendants repaid the debt at the end of December 1994, the plaintiff would still have the authority to enforce the execution of judgment as they did not pay on time.  In October 2003 the plaintiff asked an officer at the Execution Department to seize the defendants' property but as the case is more than 10 years old, the plaintiff no longer has the right to enforce the judgment against the defendant.

12/2548 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 172 (No. 6149) 2005
Kiatinakin Capital Co., Ltd. vs. Jorgan Christian Lundbak

Re: Loan Contract

The wife of the defendant owns shares valuing 27,592,508 baht in Mor Company which is community property and holds lease on Thailand property she shares with her husband.  The defendant owes a debt to the plaintiff of 23,796,255 baht.  The defendant has the authority to sale off some of his shares to repay his debt to the plaintiff.  If the defendant's wife agrees to assist him, the defendant can sell off additional shares to repay the debt owed to the plaintiff.