ordering the defendants to jointly reimburse the execution cost to the plaintiff. 26/02/2018 filed a lawsuit to a civil court24/10/2017 referred the case to a state attorney for filing a
Shia Co. for supervising the construction. Later, it was found that there was no actual construction under the contract; however, the construction cost was paid with a total amount of 27.5 million baht
supervising the construction. Later, it was found that there was no actual construction under the contract; however, the construction cost was paid with a total amount of 27.5 million baht. In addition, ACAP
. for supervising the construction. Later, it was found that there was no actual construction under the contract; however, the construction cost was paid with a total amount of 27.5 million baht. In
supervising the construction. Later, it was found that there was no actual construction under the contract; however, the construction cost was paid with a total amount of 27.5 million baht. In addition, ACAP
Shia Co. for supervising the construction. Later, it was found that there was no actual construction under the contract; however, the construction cost was paid with a total amount of 27.5 million baht
supervising the construction. Later, it was found that there was no actual construction under the contract; however, the construction cost was paid with a total amount of 27.5 million baht. In addition, ACAP
;) shares. It was discovered that Mr. Kitisak and Mr. Kitti used T Money (Thailand) Company Limited ("T-Money") to purchase MTS shares from the original shareholders at a cost price of only 400,000
;) shares. It was discovered that Mr. Kitisak and Mr. Kitti used T Money (Thailand) Company Limited ("T-Money") to purchase MTS shares from the original shareholders at a cost price of only 400,000
;) shares. It was discovered that Mr. Kitisak and Mr. Kitti used T Money (Thailand) Company Limited ("T-Money") to purchase MTS shares from the original shareholders at a cost price of only 400,000