KCC 296/2001

This case involved a preventative detention on property of a deceased man where the heirs had no other place to live. A key point was that banking transactions should be considered a commercial transaction. The debtor should claim the value of the debt from the guarantor.

Background

A claimant as a trustee of the assets of a deceased man filed a case against defendants before the court. He requested the court to dismiss a preventive detention issued by the first defendant. He said that the first defendant had imposed the detention on the property of the deceased man. She said that the heirs used to live in the property before the debt existed. He said that the heirs did not own another housing to live in.

The court ruled that the preventive detention should be dismissed.

The first defendant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court dismissed the appealed ruling and dismissed the case as well.