แปลคำให้การ1. The first and second

แปลคำให้การ
1. The first and second defendants to the plaintiff's request to reject the complaint that the plaintiffs are not true. The plaintiff brought the present mingled annoyance false charges against the defendant, one of the five to be damaged. Without legal support in the indictment. Therefore, the defendant and the second one is to be clear by then. The first and second defendants considered a rejection of the plaintiff's complaint.
2. This case was the first and the second defendant has authorized Mr. Aurum is a litigation attorney instead.
3. The first and second defendants to the plaintiff's request to reject a lawsuit that the defendants operate one manufacturing plant foods, including pastries, crispy rice and instant noodles. The plant was allowed by legislation since 2534 to date, more than 24 years and is one of the five defendants did not create pollution or discharge untreated wastewater that is not already out. Plant including such land in any way. The first defendant to factory-standard utilities. In accordance with the law and custom. By licensed and audited by various agencies, both public and private sectors every year. Has no odor, noise and water pollution, including from the relevant authorities in controlling and monitoring it. Details 1st and 2nd defendants to evidence presented to the court in consideration.
In addition, the defendants 1 and 2, asking the defendant to two of the five have acted within the scope of defendants, one of the defendants, three of the five that are not managed and do not live in Canada, so the defendant. 2 to 5 can not be jointly liable with the first defendant and the plaintiff is not personally liable. The plaintiff sued the defendant has no power to 2 to 5.
4. The first and second defendants, who denied the request further. The plaintiff was not injured and no authority to sue defendants 1 to 5, a case that is currently the plaintiff sued the defendants 1 to 5, a plaintiff does not own the property and the right to rule over the land dispute of 6 plots of land. Land No. 27 595, 20 596, 17 269, 5377 and 5498 District Nong Pong district. Ratchaburi province with total area of 44 rai 3 ngan 98 square wah Nor Sor 3 Kor. No. 1708, No. 284 Land District Nong Pong district. Ratchaburi 1 rai 1 ngan 16 square wah of the date the plaintiff registered the transfer of land from Bangkok (Thailand) on June 25, 2557 the plaintiff registered the sale of land, the sixth such conversion to Mr. Kittipong sample. Tira you redeem within a period of one year, which are made up from the sale of a listed plaintiff filed till date. The plaintiff did not appear to have regained ground, but somehow the property of the plaintiff, the plaintiff sued the defendant was not injured and no power on one of the five detailed in the Certificate and a copy of the title deed. The attachment to the numbers 2 to 7.
The first and second defendants requested further. The claim, the plaintiff claimed to have bought the land for a housing project that is not true. And certainly no evidence to assert the claim. The plaintiffs would have to check before buying the land and know very well the plight of the disputed land and the environment of neighboring land. Including that the defendant was operating one food factory is adjacent to the disputed land. The plaintiffs voluntarily agreed to buy the land and claimed that it intended to buy land for housing projects, but can not do so because one of the five defendants wastewater discharge violations. Smells and loud noises into the land of the plaintiff that is not true. And not the fault of the defendant, one of the five defendants 1 to 5, so it is not liable to the plaintiff.
5. The first and second defendants to ask the next 1 to 5 that the defendants violated the plaintiff has no intention of deliberately or negligently. The plumbing and drain into the land dispute. And never discharge of sewage and toxins. Or loud noises The stench into the disputed land claimed by the plaintiff, the defendant has one wastewater treatment standards. And all the water drained out of the defendant's first sewage treatment plant has passed the standards and criteria prescribed by law.Through a water pipe in the plant flows into the public by a legitimate factory, the first defendant to drain out of the factory three channels.
The first channel to drain rain water and water used in the daily lives of the employees in the factory.This would drain into a ditch public works amounted to 3 pipe water to drain out the water is treated by the law, then

The second channel is a water pipe that drains the water used in the production of goods. QC accused the one on the left side of the factory is the number one pipe water pipes are buried underground connection from the clarifier at the plant stretches out over a land dispute to ship the public trough, the people in the community living in the water together. by defendants 1 to 5 believe in good faith all along that the defendant, one has the right to plumbing and drainage, such as a letter of consent that Mr. Yong Jane parties fluorescence owner of the land originally agreed with the defendant.
First drain channel and a second channel first defendant used a normal drainage from factories Since opening in 2534 as detailed in the document, a copy of the statement to number eight.
The third channel A sewer emergency Normally, the first defendant would not be activated until approximately the end of November 2557, there are individuals who claim to be an employee of the owner of the disputed land reclamation and soil coming off the mouth of the drain, never one to notice the defendant. The fifth saw the defendant before the first employees at the plant affected by the inability to drain the plant defendant must first open the rear emergency drain waste water plant to the public road. And does not drain into the land dispute, according to the plaintiff's claim in any way. And the complaint the plaintiff has to inform the parish council, the chestnut is not true. When one defendant did not release water to the land dispute, according to the plaintiff, the defendant claims 1 to 5, and therefore not liable to the plaintiff.
The first and second defendants requested further. After the drain is closed, the first defendant was coordinated with government agencies. To request a drainage area along the factory buildings in the community, such as the distance of 140 meters to a nearby factory and can release water into the canal public. The drain has been completed and has been open since the beginning of December 2557 to the present, when one defendant was not released sewage and toxins. The noise and stench into the land dispute, according to the plaintiff, the defendant claims 1 to
5, thus not liable to the plaintiff. Details 1st and 2nd defendants to evidence presented to the court in consideration.
6. One of the five defendants to decline further. The plaintiff was not injured and damage to the plaintiff's claim under Article 2 is suing for damages caused by the forged and it is not true. The plaintiff relied on the bad faith of the defendants claim 1 to 5, so it is not liable for damages, according to the indictment, the prosecution said.
6.1 The first and second defendants requested further. Notice of claim on June 10, 2558 the plaintiff sued the law firm Lenz Thosapol document number 15 is not true and lawful. Because the plaintiff has such books as one of the five defendants, the plaintiff does not own the land dispute, as claimed in the book. The sale of land to the plaintiff, Mr. Kittipong Tira your taste, since on June 25, 2557 until June 24, 2548, the plaintiff sued the estate had not been redeemed at the redemption night, when the plaintiff does not own the land under claim. The right to notice of the plaintiff was not unlawful. The plaintiff has no right to sue and claim damages from the defendants 1 to 5.
6.2 The first and second defendants asked for further damages under Article 2.1 to 2.15, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages beyond that. And non-existent The claims thoughtlessly Without evidence, the defendant claims 1 to 5, so it is not liable to the plaintiff.That is.
A) damages from the soil and improve soil conditions to dry sued in 2.1 to 2.5 and 2.9 to 2.11 included the backhoe tractor paid employees the soil dry soil. And the lack of access to land degradation. A loss that does not exist And therefore, the plaintiff must assert the soil as it is not true. According to the documents filed by photo number 13 nor the defendants 1 to 5, the plaintiff has no evidence of any claims attributed to the defendant claims 1 to 5, and therefore not liable to the plaintiff.
B) The plaintiff claims damages from the housing projects can not be sued under clause 2.7, 2.12 and 2.14, including the mapping Layout housing damages from the foul air, noise, waste water hinders the village. And the way it was A loss that does not exist Without the documents the claim.The plaintiff was not injured The plaintiff's voluntary acquisition of land by the plaintiff already know the condition of the land and environment of the surrounding land. The defendant's first plant with the plant operating by the first defendant utilities comply with the law under the monitoring and control of both public and private entities. And had not been ordered by the authorities to punish any units. Since its opening in 2534 until the present, when the plaintiff was not injured and the plant's first defendant is not pollute or poison the water, sounds and smells into the disputed land claimed by the plaintiff to the defendant at first. 5 therefore not liable to the plaintiff.
C) loss of interest on sale of land 1.25 baht per month, according to a lawsuit seeking damages for plaintiffs 2.8 is forged. And a non-existent one of the five defendants have no liability and does not cause more. It is an agreement between the plaintiff and Mr. Kitti

ผลลัพธ์ (จีน) 1:

แปลคำให้การ1.第一和第二被告对原告的请求不予受理原告不属实。原告提起目前交织着的烦恼虚假指控被告，被损坏的五个。如果没有在起诉书中的法律支持。因此，被告和第二个是届时有明确。第一和第二被告认为原告申诉的拒绝。2.此案是第一个和第二被告已授权先生金是一个诉讼律师相反。3.第一和第二被告对原告的请求，拒绝诉讼被告开办一制造植物食品，包括糕点、 锅巴、 方便面。植物由以来 2534年立法允许日期，超过 24 年，是五个之一被告未创建污染或排放未经处理的废水，已经不是了。以任何方式包括该等土地的植物。第一被告向工厂标准实用程序。根据法律和习俗。在有许可的由各机构进行审计，公共和私营部门每年。有无异味、 噪声和水的污染，包括从控制和监测它的有关当局。详细信息第 1 和第 2 次被告到法院在审议中提出的证据。此外，被告 1 和 2，问到两个五被告有被告，被告一方，三个五个，不管理并不是生活在加拿大，所以被告之一的范围内行事。2 到 5 不能连带第一被告和原告是不承担个人责任。原告起诉被告无权直接 4:58 上午。4.第一和第二被告，拒绝进一步的请求。原告没有受伤和无权起诉被告 1 到 5，一例，现原告起诉被告 1 到 5，原告并不拥有财产和治权 6 地块土地纠纷。土地号 27 595、 20 596、 17 269、 5377 5498 区弄傍区。拉差布里省总面积 44 莱 3 颜 98 平方米华号 284 土地区弄傍区 Nor Sor 3 Kor.号 1708。拉 1 莱 1 颜 16 平方米华的原告注册的土地转让的日期从曼谷 (泰国) 2557 年 6 月 25 日对原告注册出售土地，到先生 Kittipong 样品的第六次这种转换。跟踪和成像雷达你赎回在一年时间内，由上市公司原告人提起到目前为止的销售。原告似乎没有已收复失地，但不知何故属性的原告，原告起诉被告不受伤，不能通电的五个详细的证书和一份地契。编号 2 到 7 附件。第一和第二被告要求进一步。提出的索赔，原告声称其购买的不是真的一个住房项目建设用地。也当然没有证据主张索赔。原告将不得不购买土地前检查和很好知道有争议的土地的困境和邻近土地的环境。包括被告经营一个食物制造厂是毗邻有争议的土地。原告自愿同意买下土地，并声称它打算买土地兴建房屋，但不是能这样做因为一个五名被告废水排放侵犯。气味和大声喧哗到原告不是真正的土地。并不是被告，五名被告 1 至 5，所以它不是判原告之一的错。5.第一和第二被告问下到 5 1 被告侵犯了原告，无意的故意或过失。管道和排水沟进入土地纠纷。和永远不会排放污水和毒素。或噪音进入有争议的土地恶臭原告主张的被告有一个废水处理标准。所有的水都耗尽他的被告的第一污水处理厂已通过法律所规定的标准。通过植物水管道流入市民通过合法的工厂，第一被告从工厂排三个频道。The first channel to drain rain water and water used in the daily lives of the employees in the factory.This would drain into a ditch public works amounted to 3 pipe water to drain out the water is treated by the law, then The second channel is a water pipe that drains the water used in the production of goods. QC accused the one on the left side of the factory is the number one pipe water pipes are buried underground connection from the clarifier at the plant stretches out over a land dispute to ship the public trough, the people in the community living in the water together. by defendants 1 to 5 believe in good faith all along that the defendant, one has the right to plumbing and drainage, such as a letter of consent that Mr. Yong Jane parties fluorescence owner of the land originally agreed with the defendant. First drain channel and a second channel first defendant used a normal drainage from factories Since opening in 2534 as detailed in the document, a copy of the statement to number eight.The third channel A sewer emergency Normally, the first defendant would not be activated until approximately the end of November 2557, there are individuals who claim to be an employee of the owner of the disputed land reclamation and soil coming off the mouth of the drain, never one to notice the defendant. The fifth saw the defendant before the first employees at the plant affected by the inability to drain the plant defendant must first open the rear emergency drain waste water plant to the public road. And does not drain into the land dispute, according to the plaintiff's claim in any way. And the complaint the plaintiff has to inform the parish council, the chestnut is not true. When one defendant did not release water to the land dispute, according to the plaintiff, the defendant claims 1 to 5, and therefore not liable to the plaintiff.The first and second defendants requested further. After the drain is closed, the first defendant was coordinated with government agencies. To request a drainage area along the factory buildings in the community, such as the distance of 140 meters to a nearby factory and can release water into the canal public. The drain has been completed and has been open since the beginning of December 2557 to the present, when one defendant was not released sewage and toxins. The noise and stench into the land dispute, according to the plaintiff, the defendant claims 1 to 5, thus not liable to the plaintiff. Details 1st and 2nd defendants to evidence presented to the court in consideration.6. One of the five defendants to decline further. The plaintiff was not injured and damage to the plaintiff's claim under Article 2 is suing for damages caused by the forged and it is not true. The plaintiff relied on the bad faith of the defendants claim 1 to 5, so it is not liable for damages, according to the indictment, the prosecution said. 6.1 The first and second defendants requested further. Notice of claim on June 10, 2558 the plaintiff sued the law firm Lenz Thosapol document number 15 is not true and lawful. Because the plaintiff has such books as one of the five defendants, the plaintiff does not own the land dispute, as claimed in the book. The sale of land to the plaintiff, Mr. Kittipong Tira your taste, since on June 25, 2557 until June 24, 2548, the plaintiff sued the estate had not been redeemed at the redemption night, when the plaintiff does not own the land under claim. The right to notice of the plaintiff was not unlawful. The plaintiff has no right to sue and claim damages from the defendants 1 to 5. 6.2 The first and second defendants asked for further damages under Article 2.1 to 2.15, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages beyond that. And non-existent The claims thoughtlessly Without evidence, the defendant claims 1 to 5, so it is not liable to the plaintiff.That is.A) damages from the soil and improve soil conditions to dry sued in 2.1 to 2.5 and 2.9 to 2.11 included the backhoe tractor paid employees the soil dry soil. And the lack of access to land degradation. A loss that does not exist And therefore, the plaintiff must assert the soil as it is not true. According to the documents filed by photo number 13 nor the defendants 1 to 5, the plaintiff has no evidence of any claims attributed to the defendant claims 1 to 5, and therefore not liable to the plaintiff.
B) The plaintiff claims damages from the housing projects can not be sued under clause 2.7, 2.12 and 2.14, including the mapping Layout housing damages from the foul air, noise, waste water hinders the village. And the way it was A loss that does not exist Without the documents the claim.The plaintiff was not injured The plaintiff's voluntary acquisition of land by the plaintiff already know the condition of the land and environment of the surrounding land. The defendant's first plant with the plant operating by the first defendant utilities comply with the law under the monitoring and control of both public and private entities. And had not been ordered by the authorities to punish any units. Since its opening in 2534 until the present, when the plaintiff was not injured and the plant's first defendant is not pollute or poison the water, sounds and smells into the disputed land claimed by the plaintiff to the defendant at first. 5 therefore not liable to the plaintiff.
C) loss of interest on sale of land 1.25 baht per month, according to a lawsuit seeking damages for plaintiffs 2.8 is forged. And a non-existent one of the five defendants have no liability and does not cause more. It is an agreement between the plaintiff and Mr. Kitti

ผลลัพธ์ (จีน) 2:

แปลคำให้การ
1。第一和第二被告对原告的请求，拒绝原告不是真正的投诉。原告起诉被告目前混到烦恼莫须有的罪名，五个一损坏。如果没有在起诉书中的法律支持。因此，被告和第二个是再清楚。第一和第二被告认为是拒绝了原告的投诉。
2。这种情况下，是第一和第二被告已授权奥罗先生是律师的诉讼代替。
3。第一和第二被告对原告的请求，拒绝被告经营一个制造工厂的食品，包括糕点，锅巴和方便面诉讼。该工厂自2534被允许通过立法至今，超过24年，是五名被告没有造成污染或排放未经处理的废水，是不是已经出来之一。工厂包括以任何方式该等土地。第一被告为出厂标准工具。依照法律和习惯。经许可并以每年各机构，公共和私营部门的审核。具有无异味，噪音和水污染，包括控制和监控其有关当局。详情第一和第二被告提交的证据中考虑了法院。
此外，被告1和2，要求被告两五都担任被告的范围，在一个被告，三五个是的没有管理，也没有住在加拿大，故被告。2〜5不能共同法律责任的第一被告与原告不承担个人责任。原告起诉要求被告无权以2比5。
4。第一和第二被告，谁拒绝了这一要求进一步。原告没有受伤，也没有权力起诉被告1至5，这是目前情况下，原告起诉被告1至5，原告没有自己的财产，并有权管辖的6幅地块的土地纠纷。土地27号595，20 596，17 269，5377和5498区农傍区。叻丕府与44 RAI颜3方98华也索尔3韩总面积。第1708号，第284号土地区农傍区。叻1 RAI原告注册的土地从曼谷（泰国）转让于6月25日之日起1颜16万华，2557原告注册出售土地，第六这种转换Kittipong先生样本。提拉你一个为期一年的，其起售上市申请原告直到日期的由内赎回。原告并未收复了地上，但不知何故，原告的财产，原告起诉要求被告没有受伤，并在五个详细的证书之一，没有实力，房产证的复印件。该附件以数字2-7
。第一和第二被告进一步要求。索赔，原告声称已经购买了土地，一个住房项目是不正确的。当然也没有证据来断言索赔。原告将不得不检查之前购买土地和心知肚明的有争议的土地的困境与邻地的环境。包括被告操作一个食品厂毗邻有争议的土地。原告自愿同意购买土地，并声称它打算买地建房项目，但不能这样做，因为五名被告废水排放违规行为之一。气味和大声喧哗到原告认为是不正确的土地。而不是被告的过错，五名被告1至5中的一个，所以它是不承担责任的原告。
5。第一和第二被告问下1到5，被告侵犯了原告无意故意或过失。管道和排水入土地纠纷。永不排放污水和毒素。或大声喧哗恶臭进入有争议的土地声称由原告，被告有一个污水处理标准。和所有排出被告的第一污水处理厂的水已经通过law.Through规定的标准和准则水管的工厂由一个合法的工厂流入公众，第一被告以排出工厂的三个通道。
第一个通道排出雨水，在factory.This员工的日常生活中使用会排入水沟公共工程量达3管水排出来的水是由法律，那么处理过的水的第二通道是水管的水渠，在商品生产中使用的水。QC指责一个在工厂的左侧是一个数字管道水管都埋在地下澄清连接在工厂伸出过土地纠纷出货公众低谷，人们在社会生活中的水一起。由被告1至5善意相信一直认为，被告人，一个人的权利，给排水，如同意书，该地块的简勇先生各方荧光所有者最初同意与被告。第一排水通道和第二通道第一被告使用从工厂开业以来在2534正常排水的文件中详述，该声明的副本排名第八。第三通道A下水道应急通常情况下，第一被告不会被激活，直至接近结束2557年11月，有个人谁算得上是有争议的土地复垦和土壤脱落漏口所有者的员工，从来没有一个注意到被告。被告在受无法排出厂被告必须先打开后紧急排水污水处理厂的公共道路该厂第一批员工之前的第五看见。并且不排放到土地纠纷，根据以任何方式原告的诉讼请求。而原告通知教区委员会投诉，栗子是不正确的。当一个被告没有释放水分到土地纠纷，根据原告，被告要求1至5，因此不容易原告，第一和第二被告的进一步要求。之后的漏极被关闭时，第一被告协调与政府机构。要请求流域沿线社区的厂房，如140米的距离到附近的工厂，可以释放水入运河公众。排水工作已经完成，并已自2557年12月到现在开始开放，当一个被告没有公布污水和毒素。噪音和臭气进入土地纠纷，根据原告，被告权利要求1至5，因此不容易原告。详情第一和第二被告的证据考虑提交给法庭。6。其中五名被告的进一步下降。原告没有受伤和损害根据第2条原告的诉讼请求被起诉所造成的损害伪造，这是不正确的。原告依靠被告的恶意权利要求1至5，所以它是不承担赔偿责任，根据起诉书，起诉说，6.1的第一和第二被告的进一步要求。6月10日索赔的通知，2558原告起诉的律师事务所楞Thosapol证件号码15是不正确的，合法的。因为原告有这样的书的五名被告之一，原告并不拥有土地纠纷，如权利书。土地出售给原告，Kittipong提拉先生你的味道，因为在2557年6月25日至2548年6月24日，原告起诉的房地产还没有被赎回在赎回晚上，当原告并不拥有在土地要求。原告以通知的权利是不是非法的。原告无权向被告起诉1并要求赔偿损失为5 6.2根据2.1条要求进一步损害到2.15的第一和第二被告，原告申请超出赔偿要求。和不存在的轻率索赔没有证据的，被告要求1至5，所以它是不容易的plaintiff.That是。A）从损害土壤，改善土壤条件，干起诉2.1至2.5和2.9至2.11包括反铲挖土机拖拉机高薪雇员土壤干土层。和缺乏获得土地退化。不存在，因此，原告必须断言土壤，因为它不是真正的损失。根据提交的照片编号13的文件，也没有被告1至5日，原告没有证据归于被告的任何索赔要求1至5，因此不容易原告。B）原告主张的损害与壳体项目不能根据第2.7，2.12和2.14起诉，其中包括从污浊的空气，噪音，废水阻碍了村庄布局映射住房损失。而它的方式是不没有claim.The原告没有受伤原告自愿收购土地的原告文件存在亏损已经知道了周边土地的土地和环境的状况。被告与工厂由第一被告公用事业经营的第一家工厂遵守根据监测和公共和私人实体的控制规律。并没有被当局下令惩罚任何单位。自开业以来在2534到现在，当原告没有受伤，工厂的第一被告是不污染或毒水，声音和气味进入有争议的土地首先声称由原告向被告。因此，5不承担原告。C）损失的销售每月1.25土地权益泰铢，根据诉讼，要求损害赔偿原告2.8是伪造的。和五被告不存在1没有责任，不会引起更多。这是原告与吉滴先生之间的协议

ผลลัพธ์ (จีน) 3:

แปลคำให้การ
1。第一、二被告对原告提出的请求驳回原告的诉讼请求不真实。原告带来的是，对被告的虚假指控，其中五个被损坏。在起诉书中没有法律支持。因此，被告和第二个是明确的。第一和第二被告认为驳回原告的申诉。本案是第一和第二被告已授权金先生是一个诉讼律师代替。
3。第一和第二被告对原告的请求驳回诉讼，被告经营一个制造植物性食物，包括点心，锅巴和方便面。该工厂是由立法允许自2534至今，超过24年，是一个五被告没有创造污染或未经处理的废水未经处理的废水。植物包括这样的土地以任何方式。第一被告工厂标准公用事业。按照法律和习俗。经各机构许可和审计，公共和私营部门每年。无异味，噪音和水污染，包括来自相关部门的控制和监控。细节第一和第二被告对证据提出了法院在考虑。
此外，的被告1和2，要求被告有两个五担任被告的范围内，一名被告，五的三是不管理，不住在加拿大，所以被告。2至5人不能承担连带责任，第一被告与原告个人不承担责任。原告起诉被告没有权力2至5。4。第一和第二名被告否认了这一要求。原告没有受伤，没有权利起诉被告1至5，