Dismissal of Embezzlement Charges and Subsequent Property Damage Claim
Article 8. The Prosecutor is the plaintiff in this case, bringing charges against Dam as the defendant for the alleged embezzlement of Red’s funds. The Prosecutor requested the court impose penalties and return the funds, with Red being a co-plaintiff. The court granted this request. Upon consideration, the court found that Dam did not embezzle the funds, and consequently, the case was dismissed. Red appealed this decision. During the appeal, Red filed a civil lawsuit against Dam, seeking damages in a separate case. Dam presented a defense in this civil case, stating that the civil lawsuit was a repetition of an already pending case with no prior judgment. Dam died. The Court of Appeal dismissed the case. He inherited assets in the civil case. The court requested a preliminary ruling. If the court deemed it necessary, it would order further consideration, as it was not a repetition of the original case, as Mr. argued, due to the possibility of rulings by the initial court and the Court of Appeal regarding the sum of 10,000 baht, and whether it should be returned to the plaintiff. This subsequent lawsuit seeks property damages based on Dam’s actions as a defendant in a tort claim, rather than concerning the same matter as Section 361/2516 of the Civil Code.