Section 302: Income exempt from execution

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4468/2566 (2023)

   An attachment notice sent to an employer can only reach a right that has already arisen. Where the officer writes to the employer to attach salary, wages, bonus, occasional remuneration and termination payments while the debtor is still employed, the notice bites only on the monthly salary; the debtor has no right yet to severance pay, pay in lieu of advance notice or special assistance, because there has been no termination. The exemptions are also distinct. Section 302(3) is what covers the ongoing monthly salary already validly attached before termination, while severance pay, pay in lieu of advance notice and special assistance received on termination are exempt under section 302(4), which caps the exemption at 300,000 baht.

   The execution officer had written to the first defendant's employer on 24 February 2558 to attach salary, wages, bonus, occasional remuneration and termination payments. At that date the defendant was still employed, so the only right in existence was to the monthly salary; the rights to severance pay, pay in lieu of advance notice and special assistance had not yet arisen because there had been no termination. When those sums were later attached and the defendant moved to have the attachment revoked, the Supreme Court held that the earlier notice could not reach them, and that the exemption for those termination payments is the one in section 302(4), capped at 300,000 baht, rather than section 302(3), which is directed to the ongoing monthly salary that had already been validly attached.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1473/2563 (2020)

   Contributions, compensation and initial money under section 5 paragraph two of the Government Pension Fund Act B.E. 2539, and the returns on them, are income of a like nature to a civil servant's pension and gratuity and are not subject to execution under Section 302 (2). But once the member has died and the bank has already remitted the money to the court in the course of execution, that money becomes part of the estate under Civil and Commercial Code section 1600 and loses that character, so the attachment need not be revoked.

   A surety on a bail bond was fined 400,000 baht and the trial court attached her bank account, which held 639,591.90 baht of Government Pension Fund money together with her salary. The Supreme Court agreed the fund money was exempt under Section 302 (2), so attaching the account did not comply with the Code within Section 27 paragraph one. It nevertheless allowed the objector's appeal in part: the surety had died on 8 November 2560 and the bank had already remitted the 400,000 baht to the court, which made that sum part of her estate under Civil and Commercial Code section 1600 and took it outside Section 302 (2). Since she had wanted the fine paid out of that account from the start, there was no need to revoke the attachment and execution was to proceed as the trial court had ordered.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1498/2566 (2023)

   Section 302 governs execution against a judgment debtor's money. It cannot be applied even by analogy, as the nearest applicable law under Civil and Commercial Code section 4 paragraph two, to deductions an employer makes from wages with the employee's written consent to pay a savings-cooperative debt. Those deductions are governed by clause 31 of the State Enterprise Labour Relations Committee's announcement on minimum conditions of employment in state enterprises, which fixes no minimum sum that must be left to the employee once written consent has been given in advance.

   A state-enterprise employee who had signed a written consent to deductions for a savings-cooperative debt argued that at least twenty thousand baht of wages had to be left each month, by analogy with Section 302 paragraph one (3). The Supreme Court rejected that: Section 302 deals with execution against a judgment debtor and cannot be borrowed as the nearest applicable law under Civil and Commercial Code section 4 paragraph two, so neither the twenty-thousand-baht figure nor a residue fixed by the court could be imposed. The deductions were governed by clause 31 of the announcement on minimum conditions of employment in state enterprises and by the consent the employee had given.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.