Open the rule, point 89 grandmother does not have to return the premium of 8.4 thousand if received in good faith – used up. Before being restored Grandma did not have to refund the money.
Stay on top of the news Press to follow the live news line.
From the case of Grandma Buon Loh Suwan, age 89, was charged by the Comptroller General’s Department to charge the elderly premium back for the past 10 years, amount 84,400 baht, with a one-year payment without interest. As previously presented the news
For the progress of 25 Jan. Mr. Udom Ngammuangsakul Faculty of Law Phayao University Post messages in groups Law To the law relating to the said case SAO incorrectly paid the elderly premium (for a total of 10 years because of duplicate payments with special pensions In case of the death of the son, grandmother who is a soldier), the Comptroller General’s Department and the SAO will retrieve the old person’s allowance from the current 89-year-old grandmother, with the retroactive refund totaling 84,000 baht plus 7.5 interest per year or not
With the opinion that This is the case “Lapmi should not” which the administrative agency is the SAO must use the right to sue in civil (Not an administrative case As per the order of the Supreme Administrative Court No. 222/2560)
The relevant legal principle is the Commercial Code, Section 412, so if the grandmother receives an elderly premium in good faith (If you can hear the fact that Grandma does not know the law / conceals the fact that she has repeatedly exercised his rights) and if Grandma accepts the money in good faith and has spent all expenses before being recalled Grandma therefore does not have to refund the said money according to Section 412 (comparable to the Supreme Court Judgment 10850/2559).
This is a flaw in the audit. It was an operation that was not required by the relevant laws and regulations of the authorities. Therefore have to seek recourse with the officers who perform the duties in accordance with the relevant laws
Commercial Code, Section 412, if the property, which has been given as windfall should not be a certain amount You must return the full amount. Except when the person has received it in good faith Therefore having to return the windfall should not be only the part that is still there at the time when restoring
Judgment of the Supreme Court 10850/2559, the defendant has no right to receive payment for living expenses, provincial pensioners according to the law. But the plaintiff paid the money to the defendant by mistake. It is money that the defendant has received without information that can be legal. And make the plaintiff a disadvantage which is windfall worthy Find the right money that the plaintiff has the right to track back as the owner of the property does not. And when it was said that the defendant had received money for living expenses, annuity pensioners in good faith and spent all expenses before the plaintiff could recall The defendant did not have to return the said money to the plaintiff under Section 412 of the Civil and Commercial Code.
–
