Bangkok Legal Service

1d Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a tenant of the row houses owned by Plaintiff pursuant to a lease agreement, followed by numerous renewal lease agreements. The last lease agreement commenced from January 1, 242 to December 31, 242. After the expiration of the lease agreement, Plaintiff and subsequently, upon the expiration of the lease agreement, Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant continuing to lease the row houses, therefore, the lease was not extended. December 243, the lease was terminated and notice was given to the Defendant to vacate the row house, but the Defendant disregarded the same until the date of the lawsuit, causing damage. If the Plaintiff’s row houses were renovated into a new building, the rental income would amount to 300,000 baht, totaling damages up to the date of the lawsuit amounting to 300,000 baht, the removal of property, and the return of the row house to the Plaintiff in accordance with section 30 subsection 6.

The aforementioned amount shall be paid together with interest at a rate of 13.5 percent per month, to be settled in full to the Plaintiff and an additional 20,000 baht per month. The Defendant and their associates will vacate the Plaintiff’s row houses, contesting the lawsuit. However, the court ruled that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was unfounded and that the Defendant had contested the issue in court.

The Defendant appealed. Subsequently, during the course of the case, it was under consideration by the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff and Defendant are involved in a new case. The Plaintiff requests the court to order the Defendant to vacate the row houses based on the lease agreement, citing damages. The Defendant contested the testimony and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff in the previous case. The following issues were raised: the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in the subsequent case and the assertion of defense by the Defendant.

In the previous case, the trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the lawsuit, but the Defendant continued to appeal the withdrawal, which had not yet been fully resolved and had not extinguished the effects of the initial filing, thus returning the parties to the status as stipulated in Section 176 (4) of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, the original status was reinstated, and the case remains pending before the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff’s continued insistence on the lawsuit, the Defendant’s case is based on a different lease agreement than the Plaintiff’s original lease agreement filed in the previous case, and the lease agreement used by the Plaintiff is already in effect, providing the basis for this lawsuit. However, the Plaintiff did not file a new lawsuit, making the situation identical to the previous one. Therefore, the filing of the lawsuit against the Plaintiff in this case is a duplicate lawsuit, requiring compliance with the provisions of the Plaintiff’s law and the Plaintiff’s rights, which the Defendant may assert in a counter-suit. Therefore, the Defendant has no right.

Examination questions and answer keys for selection for appointment as a Prosecutor, Disabled Position, B.E. 2546/2, Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Bankruptcy Law, Constitution Law, Law on the Establishment of District Courts and Criminal Procedure in District Courts, or Law on the Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Criminal Procedure in Juvenile and Family Courts.

Administrative Law, Intellectual Property Law, Family Law, or International Trade Law, Prosecutor Law, and English. One criminal case, the investigating officer charged Mr. Daeng with forgery.