Bail Agreement Liability and Interest Calculation Dispute
Ms. Saipon entered into an agreement to secure Ms. Sai-lom, whereby, based on the agreement to detain her on July 14th, upon arrival on the scheduled date, Ms. Sai-lom did not appear as scheduled and refused to pay 100,000 baht, did not appear as scheduled, and Ms. Saipon did not notify the investigating officer to pay together with interest. A notification was subsequently issued to Ms. Saipon on July 14th, 2535, to pay 100,000 baht, and Ms. Saipon refused to pay, claiming that the debt was to detain the defendant and not a debt of money, which was a breach of the bail agreement. There was no agreement to calculate interest. On July 2540, the investigating officer, as the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Ms. Sai- to have the court determine whether the investigating officer had the right to claim interest on the debt from Ms. Sai. The issue is whether Ms. Saipon’s payment of a fine of 100,000 baht was . and whether she was liable for interest on the debt. The investigating officer had the right to charge interest on Ms. Sai- due to the bail agreement for the defendant having specified a fixed penalty amount. In the event that interest was not stipulated in the bail agreement for the defendant, interest could be charged according to the law. Ms. Saipon was required to pay interest at a rate of 7.5 percent per year from July 14th, 2535 for a period of 5 years, amounting to 37,500 baht.
Ms. Saipon’s payment of 100,000 baht to the investigating officer was as a payment of the fine, which was a debt, on July 14th, 2535. The investigating officer did not specify that interest should be paid beforehand. Upon the investigating officer’s according to the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code, Section 329, Paragraph 2, the amount was separate from the original fine amount, thus it was a separate debt, not a payment of a portion of the debt that would constitute the debtor accepting the debt to the creditor, which would cause the statute of limitations to be suspended according to the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code. The fact that Ms. Saipon was in arrears in paying interest to the investigating officer due to a breach of the bail agreement for the defendant, starting from July 14th, 2535 to 2535 at a rate of 7.5 percent per year for a period of five years, amounted to 37,500 baht.
Mr. Ming possesses a plot of land that has not yet been registered with a deed.