Common use of Litigations Clause in Contracts

Litigations. 25.1 On December 6, 2011, a government agency sent a letter to a bank asking to hold the bank guarantee of Baht 20 million that the Company deposited as the mortgage since the said agency claimed that the Company failed to perform according to the contract. On December 29, 2011, the Company filed the abovementioned agency and its parties to the Central Administrative Court for the sentence of releasing the captioned bank guarantee with the compensation charge in total Baht 27.5 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum including any related fee from the next day of filing date until completion of payment since the Company considered that such a claim was not caused by the Company’s fault. On the contrary, the Company could not perform according to the contract due to the law of restricted areas. On May 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Court had rendered judgement and ordered the government agency to return the Baht 20 million bank guarantee dated 31 August 2007 to the Company under the condition that both the Company and bank jointly shared the responsibility to pay the total of Baht 10 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum from the next day of filing date (29 December 2011) until completion of payment or within 60 days starting from the date of final judgement whereas all remaining parts to be dismissed. On June 19, 2015, the government agency made an appeal to the Central Administrative Court and later on October 16, 2015, the Company made an appeal clarification to the court. Presently, the Central Administrative Court is considering the appeal clarification. However, the Company has already recorded the contingent liabilities of Baht 20 million arisen in the interim financial statements. 25.2 On April 24, 2008, a private company and group (party) filed a charge against the Company and group to the Administrative Court of First Level on the breach and claimed the damages in the amount of Baht 6 million with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until payment is made. On May 29, 2012, the court rendered judgement of dismissal but later on June 20, 2013, the litigant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court and on August 9, 2013, the Supreme Adminstrative Court had ordered to set October 2, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On June 22, 2020, the Administrative Court sent a notice scheduling the first trial by setting the first trial date on August 20, 2020 to the Supreme Administrative Court. On August 30, 2020, the Supreme Court has ruled the judgment. The case is final and will issue its rulings. On February 18, 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered to dismiss such case and the case is deemed final. 25.3 On February 5, 2018, the supplier for the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the Commercial Court requesting for payment of outstanding amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from filing date until completion of payment. On May 16, 2018, the Company submitted the testimony to the Court and the mediation was conducted on August 28, 2018 but could not come to an agreement. On October 1, 2018, the Court ordered the Company and the Party to determine the dispute and scheduled the date for witness investigation from both parties in March 2019. On March 5 - 7, 2019, both parties were conducting the witness examination of each party but the witness examination of the Company was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of additional witness examination on April 26, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on May 29, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on July 12, 2019. On July 12, 2019, the Company has proceeded with the witness examination. Both parties announced to finish the witness investigation. The Court ordered to prepare an announcement for closing the case to be filed to the Court within August 15, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Court ordered the Company to pay the outstanding amount for goods in the amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from February 6, 2018 until settlement is completed. On February 7, 2020, the Company had filed an appeal and requested for a case enforcement relief. On June 30, 2020, the Company filed a charge to court requesting to suspend the case execution and the court ruled to permit the case suspension. As the case is under the Appeal Court’s ruling No.2 request to suspend the case execution. On October 15, 2020 the Appeal Court 2 received the petition for appeal and ordered the Company to stay the execution of the sentence for the Company to place collateral in front of the court for the amount of Baht 29.35 million to be settled under the ruling of the Court of First Instance along with interest until the hearing date and 1 year further in the full amount on November 17, 2020. The Appeal Court 2 scheduled the case ruling on December 9, 2020. On February 11, 2021, the Company and the plaintiff were agreed and the Company agreed to pay the debt to the plaintiff amounted Baht 18 million into 3 installments at Baht 2 million, Baht 8 million and Baht 8 million. The plaintiff will not intend to appeal the case and this case is considered as finalized, the Company has recorded the outstanding amount of goods in the interim financial statements. As a result, the Company is not required to provide a provision for contingent liabilities. 25.4 On October 16, 2019, the trade payable of the Company's construction project has filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court in violation of the employment agreement by paying the debt and damages amounting Baht 10.50 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 12, 2020, the Company filed and countersued the plaintiff along with claiming for damages of Baht 29.62 million. On February 24, 2020, the court ordered to extend the two issues settlement date for the company and plaintiff to enter into a mediation process. The mediation was scheduled on March 27, 2020 and the new settlement date, guidance for case proceeding or plaintiff witness investigation were rescheduled to April 21, 2020. On March 27, 2020, the court ordered to dismiss the mediation process on such date and cancelled the settlement date of 2 issues. It scheduled the case proceeding guidance or plaintiff witness investigation on April 21, 2020 due to the COVID-19 situation. On June 5, 2020, the party and the Company scheduled a date for mediation but it could not be settled. The court scheduled the day of settlement of issues and direct the case proceedings or witness investigation in August 2020. On August 4, 2020, the court scheduled the day of settlement of charge, testimony, couterclaim and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties on November 18-20, 2020. On December 25, 2020, the Court had scheduled the witness investigation of plaintiff and defendant. As the case is in the process of witness investigation, the Company had recorded some of the outstanding debt in the interim financial statements. The difference from the outstanding debt and the cause of action, the Company’s management is considered that the Company has approched to defense of the case then the Company is not recorded contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.5 On August 11, 2020 the contractor of a construction company of the Company filed a lawsuit to the Minburi Civil Court on the charge of breaching hire-of-work agreement and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 2,257,000 along with interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the lawsuit date for the principal amount Baht 2,205,179.27 until the payment is settled with the plaintiff. The court scheduled the day of the settlement of issues and defined the case proceeding guidelines or plaintiff’s witness investigation on October 26, 2020. On October 26, 2020, the court ordered to postpone the day of settlement of issues for the mediation between the Company and the contractor outside of the court and postpone the day of settlement of issues or scheduled to withdraw the case or scheduled for compromise again on November 30, 2020. On November 30, 2020 the court ordered the party to schedule the mediation on January 19, 2021 and schedule the witness investigation on March 12, 2021. Later, on March 12, 2021 the Company and contractor have scheduled the mediation but could not negotiate so it went through the court trial. On March 26, 2021 the court ordered the company to pay Baht 1,232,986.60 to the contractor with interest at 7.5 percent p.a. Later, from April 20, 2020 until settlement is complete, the management of the company believes that in such case the Company has information and guideline to fight the case. Therefore, it filed a petition to the Appeal Court for consideration. The Appeal Court required the Company to submit document for trial within May 25, 2021. Presently, the case is under document gathering to file to the Appeal Court and the management of the company has considered that the company has approched to defense. Therefore, the Company has not provided the provision in the interim financial statements. 25.6 On December 16, 2020, the Company had filed the case to Thanyaburi Provincial Court ordered the contractor of a project (defendant) to liable due to breach of agreement and ordered to pay the damages. The Company had requested the defendant to pay Baht 202,329 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal amounted Baht 184,596 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will finish the payment to the plaintiff. The Court had scheduled the first judgment on February 15, 2021. Due to the Coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), the court has extended the case indefinitely. Presently, the case is under the statment submission process. The management has confidence to win the case. The Company has not provided a provision in the interim financial statements. 25.7 On August 1, 2019, the subsidiary is the plaintiff sueing the case against 2 government units as defendant No.1 and No.2 civil court as the black court case Por. 4156/2562 to pay for the surcharge, expense, and damage due to breach of agreement of a construction project of the subsidiary in the amount Baht 28.6 million with interest 7.5% per annum of the principal Baht 26.8 million from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. The court scheduled for plaintiff witness investigation or day of settlement of issues to October 21, 2019. On November 25, 2019, the subsidiary has received the testimony from the parties. As the case is quite complicated in defending, therefore, the Court has given the subsidiary the opportunity to fully defend the case, to examine the testimony, to prepare the witness and documents. On January 30, 2020, the court and both parties proceeded to identify the dispute and schedule the witness investigation. The court scheduled the plaintiff’s witness investigation on July 14-15, 2020 and scheduled the defendant’s witness investigation on July 16-17, 2020. The court will deliver judgment on September 25, 2020. On September 25, 2020 the court ordered the defendant 2 to pay the subsidiary Baht 4.40 million along with the interest rate of 7.5% per annum and defendant 2 to pay off the execution fee on behalf of the subsidiary. The lawyer fee is set at Baht 50,000 and execution fee for defendant 2 only for the amount which the Company won the case and sue defendant 1 to seize the execution fee between the company and defendant 1. On January 22, 2021, the subsidiary had filed to the Appeal Court to ask for the additional damage fees. As the case is under the plaintiff and defendant’s appeal, the management of the subsidiary believes that the case will not have any material impact. Therefore, the subsidiary has not recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 25.8 On November 20, 2019, a subcontractors of the construction project of a subsidiary has filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court in violation of the employment agreement, for unpaid wages and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 1.25 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 4, 2020, the subsidiary filed a testimony and countersued claiming for the remaining damages of Baht 80,791. On February 19, 2020, the plaintiff filed a replication. On March 10, 2020, the court and the party had identified the dispute and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties during July 14 - 17, 2020. On July 15-16, 2020 the court scheduled for witness investigation of 2 parties. Later, on September 8, 2020 the court had a ruling to dismiss the plaintiff and seize the execution fee. The plaintiff submitted a petition for the case appeal which is due to for filing of the appeal on November 30, 2020. However, the party has not filed an appeal in such period so the case is dismissed. 25.9 On June 28, 2020, the subsidiary received the statement of claim from the Civil Court that an insurance company (plaintiff) filed a charge to the subsidiary and group on the breach of subrogation claiming damages and insurance for construction equipment of a construction project of a subsidiary from construction equipment bouncing into the passage way causing damage to the victim’s car. The plaintiff is the insurer who suffers damage and claims the damages for Baht 293,378 along with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until the Subsidiary and group can settle full payment. The court required the subsidiary to file a statement to fight the case within July 27, 2020 and scheduled the day of settlement of issues, case proceedings and witness investigation on August 24, 2020. On July 22, 2020, the management of the subsidiary had appointed the case’s attorney. Later on August 24, 2020, the Court had appointed for settlement the issues and set the case guidelines or plaintiff witness. But the proxy of the plaintiff’s lawyer and the proxy of the subsidiary had filed to adjourn the case and the Court allowed to adjourn and appointed for settlement the issues on November 30, 2020. Later on November 30, 2020, the Court had appointed for settlement the issues and scheduled date of witness on May 17, 2021. Currently, the case is pending the witness of plaintiff and defendant. The Subsidiary’s management has considered from the issues of the case and has the opinion that the subsidiary believe that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.10 On December 16, 2020, the subcontractor of the construction project of a subsidiary had sued the subsidiary on the charge of breach of agreement and claiming damages for the construction fee that the subsidiary had owed to the plaintiff amounted Baht 3,216,157.29 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal of Baht 3,034,707.10 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will complete the payment. On December 20, 2020, the subsidiary had received the copy of charge and the Court required to submit a defense statement on January 19, 2021 until the Court set an appointment for settlement the issues and set guidelines for lawsuit or examination of the plaintiff's witness on February 23, 2021. Presently, the subsidiary has extended the testimony to court. Currently, the case is pending the submission of the defence of the case. The subsidiary's management believes that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded a provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.11 On January 25, 2021, the contractors of the construction project of the 2 subsidiaries had jointly filed a charge against the company as plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 , respectively, on breach of agreement claiming that the subsidiary has not yet paid for the hire of work and claimed for the accrued hire of work in the amount of Baht 1,416,554.60 with

Litigations. 25.1 39.1 On December 6, 2011, a government agency sent a letter to a bank asking to hold the bank guarantee of Baht 20 million that the Company deposited as the mortgage since the said agency claimed that the Company failed to perform according to the contract. On December 29, 2011, the Company filed the abovementioned agency and its parties to the Central Administrative Court for the sentence of releasing the captioned bank guarantee with the compensation charge in total Baht 27.5 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum including any related fee from the next day of filing date until completion of payment since the Company considered that such a claim was not caused by the Company’s fault. On the contrary, the Company could not perform according to the contract due to the law of restricted areas. On May 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Court had rendered judgement and ordered the government agency to return the Baht 20 million bank guarantee dated 31 August 2007 to the Company under the condition that both the Company and bank jointly shared the responsibility to pay the total of Baht 10 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum from the next day of filing date (29 December 2011) until completion of payment or within 60 days starting from the date of final judgement whereas all remaining parts to be dismissed. On June 19, 2015, the government agency made an appeal to the Central Administrative Court and later on October 16, 2015, the Company made an appeal clarification to the court. Presently, the Central Administrative Court is considering the appeal clarification. However, the Company has already recorded the contingent liabilities of Baht 20 million arisen in the interim financial statements. 39.2 On December 4, 2007, the subsidiary filed a suit to the Central Administrative Court against a government agency (litigant) in order for payment of a penalty charge of Baht 13.4 million for termination of construction contract by deducting the advance payment of Baht 7.7 million as per the contract and the total of damages to be paid Baht 6.1 million plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. 25.2 However, the litigant submitted its pleading to the Central Administration Court on August 20, 2008 claiming that the amount of damages was overrated and the third resolution of the Compensation Committee was made on July 16, 2008 to order the government agency to pay the compensation of Baht 0.8 million to the subsidiary. Therefore, it ordered the subsidiary to return the amount of Baht 6.8 million to the government agency, respectively. After that, several amendments to the petition and pleadings of both parties were made. On April 20, 2010, the litigant submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administrative Court about the fee of the advance payment bank guarantee of Baht 0.1 million and the litigant asked the court for dismissal and order the subsidiary to return the litigant the advance amount of Baht 7.7 million in order to proceed as per the employment contract. The subsidiary submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administration Court on January 24, 2012 requesting the court to render judgement ordering the litigant to offset the compensation amount of Baht 19.4 million with the amount of Baht 7.7 million advanced to the subsidiary to proceed as per the employment contract as well as paying the damage amount of Baht 12.5 million to the subsidiary plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. The litigant submitted its refusal pleadings and asked the court for dismissal and returning of the aforementioned advance payment amount as well. On July 31, 2012, the court rendered judgement ordering the subsidiary to receive Baht 3.3 million and also return Baht 4.4 million to the litigant. The subsidiary then submitted its appeal for the judgement to the Supreme Administrative Court on August 29, 2012. On April 30, 2020, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the subsidiary to indemnify the party in the amount of Baht 3.75 million. Later, on July 20, 2020 the subsidiary has already paid the indemnity to the party and consider this case to be terminated. 39.3 On April 24, 2008, a private company and group (party) filed a charge against the Company and group to the Administrative Court of First Level on the breach and claimed the damages in the amount of Baht 6 million with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until payment is made. On May 29, 2012, the court rendered judgement of dismissal but later on June 20, 2013, the litigant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court and on August 9, 2013, the Supreme Adminstrative Court had ordered to set October 2, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On June 22, 2020, the Administrative Court sent a notice scheduling the first trial by setting the first trial date on August 20, 2020 to the Supreme Administrative Court. On August 30, 2020, the Supreme Court has ruled the judgment. The case is final and will issue its rulings. Presently, such case is pending the judgment of the Supreme Court and the management believes that the Company will not suffer significant damage (if any). Such lawsuit has not recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 39.4 On February 18September 14, 20212015, the Supreme plaintiff (the litigant) filed a lawsuit against a government agency and 8 co-defendants to the Administrative Court for compensation of damages from loss of income of Baht 87.5 million. The Company is sued as the fifth defendant. On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an objection against the plaintiff’s request to waive the court fee. Later, on October 28, 2016, the Company filed a statement to fight the case to the Administrative Court. On January 12, 2017, the Company has just submitted the statement of defence to the court and the court ordered the Company to submit the additional statement within 30 days. During February 7, 2017 to March 31, 2017 the Company had requested to extend the submission of the additional clarification to the Administration Court. Later on April 4, 2017, the Administrative Court had ordered the Company to submit the additional clarification within May 12, 2017. On June 12, 2017, the Company submitted the additional statement to the Administration Court. On January 9, 2019, the Administrative Court ordered the date of January 31, 2019 to be the last day of investigation. On April 29, 2019, the Administrtive Court had ordered to cancel the ending date for seeking facts and had ordered to set May 13, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On December 29, 2020, the Central Administrative Court had sentenced that as the Company was not a delegate to exercise power or conduct administrative affairs, then it was not a government agency under Section 3 of the Administrative Court Establishment Act. The Administrative Court was unable to accept the complaint in the case filed against the Company for consideration and judgment, dismiss such the Company and consider this case to be terminated. 39.5 On December 6, 2017, the co-contractor of the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the arbitrator requesting the Company to return the collateral held at the amount of SGD 1.6 million or equivalent to Baht 39.4 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until completion of payment. On June 21, 2018, the arbitration Institution had announced the appointment of the chairman of arbitration. On July 17, 2018, the Company and the case Party were present before the arbitrator for determination of the dispute and set the date for witness investigation. On November 22, 2018, the witness examination was completely made by the arbitration and both parties. On January 23, 2019, both parties submitted their closing statements within the due date for final decision of the arbitration. On July 9, 2019, the arbitrator had a meeting to explain the opinion on the case. The 2 arbitrators had an opinion to return the sum under the guarantee letter of SGD 1.6 million with an interest rate 7.5% per annum from December 6, 2017 to the Party and 1 arbitrator had an opinion for the company not to return the money of the full amount in the guarantee letter to the Party. If both parties do not agree with any opinion, a petition should be prepared to explain a reason to support within 30 days from such date. On August 7, 2019, the Company submitted a petition to explain the opinion of the company to the arbitrator explaining and giving opinion on issues that they do not reach agreement with the arbitrator’s explanation. On September 4, 2019, the arbitrator institute notified the opinion of the arbitrator by standing on the explanation that was informed to every party. On November 13, 2019, both parties have agreed to enter into a compromise agreement to pay in accordance with the award of the arbitrator by offsetting the debt. The outstanding amount of principal and interest from the date of lawsuit to October 31, 2019 that the Company has to pay to the claimant is deemed finaltotaled SGD 1,726,706.70 or approximately Baht 38.89 million by dividing into 2 installments : November 15, 2019 amount of Baht 36.25 million and February 28, 2020 amount of Baht 2.64 million, respectively. The Company paid the principal and interest to the claimant within the specified time. 25.3 39.6 On February 5, 2018, the supplier for the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the Commercial Court requesting for payment of outstanding amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from filing date until completion of payment. On May 16, 2018, the Company submitted the testimony to the Court and the mediation was conducted on August 28, 2018 but could not come to an agreement. On October 1, 2018, the Court ordered the Company and the Party to determine the dispute and scheduled the date for witness investigation from both parties in March 2019. On Later, on March 5 - 7, 2019, both parties were conducting the witness examination of each party but the witness examination of the Company was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of additional witness examination on April 26, 2019. On Later on April 26, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on May 29, 2019. On Later on May 29, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on July 12, 2019. On Later on July 12, 2019, the Company has proceeded with the witness examination. Both parties announced to finish the witness investigation. The Court ordered to prepare an announcement for closing the case to be filed to the Court within August 15, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Court ordered the Company to pay the outstanding amount for goods in the amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from February 6, 2018 until settlement is completed. On February 7, 2020, the Company had filed an appeal and requested for a case enforcement relief. On June 30, 2020, the Company filed a charge to court requesting to suspend the case execution and the court ruled to permit the case suspension. As the case is under the Appeal Court’s ruling No.2 request to suspend the case execution. On October 15, 2020 the Appeal Court 2 received the petition for appeal and ordered the Company to stay the execution of the sentence for the Company to place collateral in front of the court for the amount of Baht 29.35 million to be settled under the ruling of the Court of First Instance along with interest until the hearing date and 1 year further in the full amount on November 17, 2020. The Appeal Court 2 scheduled the case ruling on December 9, 2020. On February 11, 2021, the Company and the plaintiff were agreed and the Company agreed to pay the debt to the plaintiff amounted Baht 18 million into 3 installments at Baht 2 million, Baht 8 million and Baht 8 million. The plaintiff will not intend to appeal the case and this case is considered as finalized, the Company has recorded the outstanding amount of goods in the interim financial statements. As a result, the Company is not required to provide a provision for contingent liabilities. 25.4 39.7 On October 16, 20192017, the trade payable of the Company's construction project has filed Nakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court accepted a lawsuit with the Civil Court in violation of the employment agreement by paying the debt and damages amounting Baht 10.50 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 12, 2020, the Company filed and countersued the plaintiff along with claiming for damages of Baht 29.62 million. On February 24, 2020, the court ordered to extend the two issues settlement date for the company and plaintiff to enter into case between a mediation process. The mediation was scheduled on March 27, 2020 litigant and the new settlement dategovernment agencies, guidance for case proceeding or plaintiff witness investigation were rescheduled requesting the Court to April 21, 2020. On March 27, 2020, the court ordered to dismiss the mediation process on such date and cancelled the settlement date of 2 issues. It scheduled the case proceeding guidance or plaintiff witness investigation on April 21, 2020 due issue an order as relating to the COVID-19 situation. On June 5, 2020, the party and the Company scheduled a date for mediation but it could not be settled. The court scheduled the day of settlement of issues and direct the case proceedings or witness investigation in August 2020. On August 4, 2020, the court scheduled the day of settlement of charge, testimony, couterclaim and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties on November 18-20, 2020. On December 25, 2020, the Court had scheduled the witness investigation of plaintiff and defendant. As the case is in the process of witness investigation, the Company had recorded some of the outstanding debt in the interim financial statements. The difference from the outstanding debt and the cause of action, the Company’s management is considered following; 1) Requesting that the Company has approched government agencies revoke the permission to defense of use the case then the Company is not recorded contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.5 On August 11, 2020 the contractor of water from a construction company of the Company filed a lawsuit reservoir that had been granted to the Minburi Civil Court on the charge of breaching hire-of-work agreement and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 2,257,000 along with interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the lawsuit date for the principal amount Baht 2,205,179.27 until the payment is settled with the plaintiff. The court scheduled the day of the settlement of issues and defined the case proceeding guidelines or plaintiff’s witness investigation on October 26, 2020. On October 26, 2020, the court ordered to postpone the day of settlement of issues for the mediation between the Company and the contractor outside of the court and postpone the day of settlement of issues or scheduled to withdraw the case or scheduled for compromise again on November 30, 2020. On November 30, 2020 the court ordered the party to schedule the mediation on January 19, 2021 and schedule the witness investigation on March 12, 2021. Later, on March 12, 2021 the Company and contractor have scheduled the mediation but could not negotiate so it went through the court trial. On March 26, 2021 the court ordered the company to pay Baht 1,232,986.60 to the contractor with interest at 7.5 percent p.a. Later, from April 20, 2020 until settlement is complete, the management of the company believes that in such case the Company has information and guideline to fight the case. Therefore, it filed a petition to the Appeal Court for consideration. The Appeal Court required the Company to submit document for trial within May 25, 2021. Presently, the case is under document gathering to file to the Appeal Court and the management of the company has considered that the company has approched to defense. Therefore, the Company has not provided the provision in the interim financial statementsassociate. 25.6 On December 16, 2020, the Company had filed the case to Thanyaburi Provincial Court ordered the contractor of a project (defendant) to liable due to breach of agreement and ordered to pay the damages. The Company had requested the defendant to pay Baht 202,329 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal amounted Baht 184,596 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will finish the payment to the plaintiff. The Court had scheduled the first judgment on February 15, 2021. Due to the Coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), the court has extended the case indefinitely. Presently, the case is under the statment submission process. The management has confidence to win the case. The Company has not provided a provision in the interim financial statements. 25.7 On August 1, 2019, the subsidiary is the plaintiff sueing the case against 2 government units as defendant No.1 and No.2 civil court as the black court case Por. 4156/2562 to pay for the surcharge, expense, and damage due to breach of agreement of a construction project of the subsidiary in the amount Baht 28.6 million with interest 7.5% per annum of the principal Baht 26.8 million from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. The court scheduled for plaintiff witness investigation or day of settlement of issues to October 21, 2019. On November 25, 2019, the subsidiary has received the testimony from the parties. As the case is quite complicated in defending, therefore, the Court has given the subsidiary the opportunity to fully defend the case, to examine the testimony, to prepare the witness and documents. On January 30, 2020, the court and both parties proceeded to identify the dispute and schedule the witness investigation. The court scheduled the plaintiff’s witness investigation on July 14-15, 2020 and scheduled the defendant’s witness investigation on July 16-17, 2020. The court will deliver judgment on September 25, 2020. On September 25, 2020 the court ordered the defendant 2 to pay the subsidiary Baht 4.40 million along with the interest rate of 7.5% per annum and defendant 2 to pay off the execution fee on behalf of the subsidiary. The lawyer fee is set at Baht 50,000 and execution fee for defendant 2 only for the amount which the Company won the case and sue defendant 1 to seize the execution fee between the company and defendant 1. On January 22, 2021, the subsidiary had filed to the Appeal Court to ask for the additional damage fees. As the case is under the plaintiff and defendant’s appeal, the management of the subsidiary believes that the case will not have any material impact. Therefore, the subsidiary has not recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 25.8 On November 20, 2019, a subcontractors of the construction project of a subsidiary has filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court in violation of the employment agreement, for unpaid wages and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 1.25 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 4, 2020, the subsidiary filed a testimony and countersued claiming for the remaining damages of Baht 80,791. On February 19, 2020, the plaintiff filed a replication. On March 10, 2020, the court and the party had identified the dispute and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties during July 14 - 17, 2020. On July 15-16, 2020 the court scheduled for witness investigation of 2 parties. Later, on September 8, 2020 the court had a ruling to dismiss the plaintiff and seize the execution fee. The plaintiff submitted a petition for the case appeal which is due to for filing of the appeal on November 30, 2020. However, the party has not filed an appeal in such period so the case is dismissed. 25.9 On June 28, 2020, the subsidiary received the statement of claim from the Civil Court that an insurance company (plaintiff) filed a charge to the subsidiary and group on the breach of subrogation claiming damages and insurance for construction equipment of a construction project of a subsidiary from construction equipment bouncing into the passage way causing damage to the victim’s car. The plaintiff is the insurer who suffers damage and claims the damages for Baht 293,378 along with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until the Subsidiary and group can settle full payment. The court required the subsidiary to file a statement to fight the case within July 27, 2020 and scheduled the day of settlement of issues, case proceedings and witness investigation on August 24, 2020. On July 22, 2020, the management of the subsidiary had appointed the case’s attorney. Later on August 24, 2020, the Court had appointed for settlement the issues and set the case guidelines or plaintiff witness. But the proxy of the plaintiff’s lawyer and the proxy of the subsidiary had filed to adjourn the case and the Court allowed to adjourn and appointed for settlement the issues on November 30, 2020. Later on November 30, 2020, the Court had appointed for settlement the issues and scheduled date of witness on May 17, 2021. Currently, the case is pending the witness of plaintiff and defendant. The Subsidiary’s management has considered from the issues of the case and has the opinion that the subsidiary believe that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.10 On December 16, 2020, the subcontractor of the construction project of a subsidiary had sued the subsidiary on the charge of breach of agreement and claiming damages for the construction fee that the subsidiary had owed to the plaintiff amounted Baht 3,216,157.29 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal of Baht 3,034,707.10 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will complete the payment. On December 20, 2020, the subsidiary had received the copy of charge and the Court required to submit a defense statement on January 19, 2021 until the Court set an appointment for settlement the issues and set guidelines for lawsuit or examination of the plaintiff's witness on February 23, 2021. Presently, the subsidiary has extended the testimony to court. Currently, the case is pending the submission of the defence of the case. The subsidiary's management believes that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded a provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.11 On January 25, 2021, the contractors of the construction project of the 2 subsidiaries had jointly filed a charge against the company as plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 , respectively, on breach of agreement claiming that the subsidiary has not yet paid for the hire of work and claimed for the accrued hire of work in the amount of Baht 1,416,554.60 with

Litigations. 25.1 36.1 On December 6, 2011, a government agency sent a letter to a bank asking to hold the bank guarantee of Baht 20 million that the Company deposited as the mortgage since the said agency claimed that the Company failed to perform according to the contract. On December 29, 2011, the Company filed the abovementioned agency and its parties to the Central Administrative Court for the sentence of releasing the captioned bank guarantee with the compensation charge in total Baht 27.5 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum including any related fee from the next day of filing date until completion of payment since the Company considered that such a claim was not caused by the Company’s fault. On on the contrary, the Company could not perform according to the contract due to the law of restricted areas. On May 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Court had rendered judgement and ordered the government agency to return the Baht 20 million bank guarantee dated 31 August 2007 to the Company under the condition that both the Company and bank jointly shared the responsibility to pay the total of Baht 10 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum from the next day of filing date (29 December 2011) until completion of payment or within 60 days starting from the date of final judgement whereas all remaining parts to be dismissed. On June 19, 2015, the government agency made an appeal to the Central Administrative Court and later on October 16, 2015, the Company made an appeal clarification to the court. Presently, the Central Administrative Court is considering the appeal clarification. However, the Company has already recorded the contingent liabilities of Baht 20 million arisen in the interim financial statements. 25.2 . 36.2 On April May 24, 20082011, a private company and group (partylitigant) filed a charge against the Company and group to the Administrative Court of First Level on the breach and claimed the damages in the amount of Baht 6 million with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until payment is made. On May 29, 2012, the court rendered judgement of dismissal but later on June 20, 2013, the litigant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court and on August 9, 2013, the Supreme Adminstrative Court had ordered to set October 2, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On June 22, 2020, the Administrative Court sent a notice scheduling the first trial by setting the first trial date on August 20, 2020 to the Supreme Administrative Court. On August 30, 2020, the Supreme Court has ruled the judgment. The case is final and will issue its rulings. On February 18, 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered to dismiss such case and the case is deemed final. 25.3 On February 5, 2018, the supplier for the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the Commercial Court requesting for payment of outstanding amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from filing date until completion of payment. On May 16, 2018, the Company submitted the testimony to the Court and the mediation was conducted on August 28, 2018 but could not come to an agreement. On October 1, 2018, the Court ordered the Company and the Party to determine the dispute and scheduled the date for witness investigation from both parties in March 2019. On March 5 - 7, 2019, both parties were conducting the witness examination of each party but the witness examination of the Company was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of additional witness examination on April 26, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on May 29, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on July 12, 2019. On July 12, 2019, the Company has proceeded with the witness examination. Both parties announced to finish the witness investigation. The Court ordered to prepare an announcement for closing the case to be filed to the Court within August 15, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Court ordered the Company to pay the outstanding amount for goods in the amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from February 6, 2018 until settlement is completed. On February 7, 2020, the Company had filed an appeal and requested for a case enforcement relief. On June 30, 2020, the Company filed a charge to court requesting to suspend the case execution and the court ruled to permit the case suspension. As the case is under the Appeal Court’s ruling No.2 request to suspend the case execution. On October 15, 2020 the Appeal Court 2 received the petition for appeal and ordered the Company to stay the execution of the sentence for the Company to place collateral in front of the court for the amount of Baht 29.35 million to be settled under the ruling of the Court of First Instance along with interest until the hearing date and 1 year further in the full amount on November 17, 2020. The Appeal Court 2 scheduled the case ruling on December 9, 2020. On February 11, 2021, the Company and the plaintiff were agreed and the Company agreed to pay the debt to the plaintiff amounted Baht 18 million into 3 installments at Baht 2 million, Baht 8 million and Baht 8 million. The plaintiff will not intend to appeal the case and this case is considered as finalized, the Company has recorded the outstanding amount of goods in the interim financial statements. As a result, the Company is not required to provide a provision for contingent liabilities. 25.4 On October 16, 2019, the trade payable of the Company's construction project has filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court in violation of the employment agreement by paying the debt and damages amounting Baht 10.50 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 12, 2020, the Company filed and countersued the plaintiff along with claiming for damages of Baht 29.62 million. On February 24, 2020, the court ordered to extend the two issues settlement date for the company and plaintiff to enter into a mediation process. The mediation was scheduled on March 27, 2020 and the new settlement date, guidance for case proceeding or plaintiff witness investigation were rescheduled to April 21, 2020. On March 27, 2020, the court ordered to dismiss the mediation process on such date and cancelled the settlement date of 2 issues. It scheduled the case proceeding guidance or plaintiff witness investigation on April 21, 2020 due to the COVID-19 situation. On June 5, 2020, the party and the Company scheduled a date for mediation but it could not be settled. The court scheduled the day of settlement of issues and direct the case proceedings or witness investigation in August 2020. On August 4, 2020, the court scheduled the day of settlement of charge, testimony, couterclaim and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties on November 18-20, 2020. On December 25, 2020, the Court had scheduled the witness investigation of plaintiff and defendant. As the case is in the process of witness investigation, the Company had recorded some of the outstanding debt in the interim financial statements. The difference from the outstanding debt and the cause of action, the Company’s management is considered that the Company has approched to defense of the case then the Company is not recorded contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.5 On August 11, 2020 the contractor of a construction company of the Company filed a lawsuit to the Minburi Civil Court on the charge of breaching hire-of-work agreement and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 2,257,000 along with interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the lawsuit date for the principal amount Baht 2,205,179.27 until the payment is settled with the plaintiff. The court scheduled the day of the settlement of issues and defined the case proceeding guidelines or plaintiff’s witness investigation on October 26, 2020. On October 26, 2020, the court ordered to postpone the day of settlement of issues for the mediation between the Company and the contractor outside of the court and postpone the day of settlement of issues or scheduled to withdraw the case or scheduled for compromise again on November 30, 2020. On November 30, 2020 the court ordered the party to schedule the mediation on January 19, 2021 and schedule the witness investigation on March 12, 2021. Later, on March 12, 2021 the Company and contractor have scheduled the mediation but could not negotiate so it went through the court trial. On March 26, 2021 the court ordered the company to pay Baht 1,232,986.60 to the contractor with interest at 7.5 percent p.a. Later, from April 20, 2020 until settlement is complete, the management of the company believes that in such case the Company has information and guideline to fight the case. Therefore, it filed a petition to the Appeal Court for consideration. The Appeal Court required the Company to submit document for trial within May 25, 2021. Presently, the case is under document gathering to file to the Appeal Court and the management of the company has considered that the company has approched to defense. Therefore, the Company has not provided the provision in the interim financial statements. 25.6 On December 16, 2020, the Company had filed the case to Thanyaburi Provincial Court ordered the contractor of a project (defendant) to liable due to breach of agreement and ordered to pay the damages. The Company had requested the defendant to pay Baht 202,329 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal amounted Baht 184,596 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will finish the payment to the plaintiff. The Court had scheduled the first judgment on February 15, 2021. Due to the Coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), the court has extended the case indefinitely. Presently, the case is under the statment submission process. The management has confidence to win the case. The Company has not provided a provision in the interim financial statements. 25.7 On August 1, 2019, against the subsidiary is the plaintiff sueing the case against 2 government units as defendant No.1 and No.2 civil court as the black court case Por. 4156/2562 to pay for the surcharge, expense, and damage due to breach of agreement of a construction project of the subsidiary in the amount Baht 28.6 million with interest 7.5% per annum of the principal Baht 26.8 million from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. The court scheduled for plaintiff witness investigation or day of settlement of issues to October 21, 2019. On November 25, 2019, the subsidiary has received the testimony from the parties. As the case is quite complicated in defending, therefore, the Court has given the subsidiary the opportunity to fully defend the case, to examine the testimony, to prepare the witness and documents. On January 30, 2020, the court and both parties proceeded to identify the dispute and schedule the witness investigation. The court scheduled the plaintiff’s witness investigation on July 14-15, 2020 and scheduled the defendant’s witness investigation on July 16-17, 2020. The court will deliver judgment on September 25, 2020. On September 25, 2020 the court ordered the defendant 2 to pay the subsidiary Baht 4.40 million along with the interest rate of 7.5% per annum and defendant 2 to pay off the execution fee on behalf of the subsidiary. The lawyer fee is set at Baht 50,000 and execution fee for defendant 2 only for the amount which the Company won the case and sue defendant 1 to seize the execution fee between the company and defendant 1. On January 22, 2021, the subsidiary had filed to the Appeal Court to ask for the additional damage fees. As the case is under the plaintiff and defendant’s appeal, the management of the subsidiary believes that the case will not have any material impact. Therefore, the subsidiary has not recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 25.8 On November 20, 2019, a subcontractors of the construction project of a subsidiary has filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court in violation of the employment agreement, for unpaid wages and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 1.25 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 4, 2020, the subsidiary filed a testimony and countersued claiming for the remaining damages of Baht 80,791. On February 19, 2020, the plaintiff filed a replication. On March 10, 2020, the court and the party had identified the dispute and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties during July 14 - 17, 2020. On July 15-16, 2020 the court scheduled for witness investigation of 2 parties. Later, on September 8, 2020 the court had a ruling to dismiss the plaintiff and seize the execution fee. The plaintiff submitted a petition for the case appeal which is due to for filing of the appeal on November 30, 2020. However, the party has not filed an appeal in such period so the case is dismissed. 25.9 On June 28, 2020, the subsidiary received the statement of claim from the Civil Court that an insurance company (plaintiff) filed a charge to the subsidiary and group on the breach of subrogation claiming damages and insurance for construction equipment of a construction project of a subsidiary from construction equipment bouncing into the passage way causing damage to the victim’s car. The plaintiff is the insurer who suffers damage and claims the damages for Baht 293,378 along with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until the Subsidiary and group can settle full payment. The court required the subsidiary to file a statement to fight the case within July 27, 2020 and scheduled the day of settlement of issues, case proceedings and witness investigation on August 24, 2020. On July 22, 2020, the management of the subsidiary had appointed the case’s attorney. Later on August 24, 2020, the Court had appointed for settlement the issues and set the case guidelines or plaintiff witness. But the proxy of the plaintiff’s lawyer and the proxy of the subsidiary had filed to adjourn the case and the Court allowed to adjourn and appointed for settlement the issues on November 30, 2020. Later on November 30, 2020, the Court had appointed for settlement the issues and scheduled date of witness on May 17, 2021. Currently, the case is pending the witness of plaintiff and defendant. The Subsidiary’s management has considered from the issues of the case and has the opinion that the subsidiary believe that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.10 On December 16, 2020, the subcontractor of the construction project of a subsidiary had sued the subsidiary on the charge of breach of agreement and claiming damages for the construction fee that the subsidiary had owed to the plaintiff amounted Baht 3,216,157.29 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal of Baht 3,034,707.10 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will complete the payment. On December 20, 2020, the subsidiary had received the copy of charge and the Court required to submit a defense statement on January 19, 2021 until the Court set an appointment for settlement the issues and set guidelines for lawsuit or examination of the plaintiff's witness on February 23, 2021. Presently, the subsidiary has extended the testimony to court. Currently, the case is pending the submission of the defence of the case. The subsidiary's management believes that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded a provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.11 On January 25, 2021, the contractors of the construction project of the 2 subsidiaries had jointly filed a charge against the company as plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 , respectively, on breach of agreement claiming that the subsidiary has not yet paid for defaulted on the hire contract claiming damage of work and claimed for the accrued hire of work in the amount of Baht 1,416,554.60 withBaht

Litigations. 25.1 On December 6, 2011, a government agency sent a letter to a bank asking to hold the bank guarantee of Baht 20 million that the Company deposited as the mortgage since the said agency claimed that the Company failed to perform according to the contract. On December 29, 2011, the Company filed the abovementioned agency and its parties to the Central Administrative Court for the sentence of releasing the captioned bank guarantee with the compensation charge in total totally Baht 27.5 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum including any related fee from the next day of filing date until completion of payment since the Company considered that such a claim was not caused by the Company’s fault. On fault on the contrary, the Company could not perform according to the contract due to the law of restricted areas. On May 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Court had rendered judgement and ordered the government agency to return the Company’s Baht 20 million bank guarantee dated 31 August 2007 to the Company under the condition that both the Company and bank government agency jointly shared the responsibility to pay the total of Baht 10 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum from the next day of filing date (29 December 2011) until completion of payment or within 60 days starting from the date of final judgement whereas all remaining parts to be dismissed. On June 19, 2015, the government agency made an appeal to the Central Administrative Court and later on October 16, 2015, the Company made an appeal clarification to the court. Presently, the Central Administrative Court is considering the appeal clarification. However, clarification the Company has already recorded the contingent liabilities of Baht 20 million arisen in the interim financial statements. . 25.2 On April May 24, 20082011, a private company and group (partylitigant) filed a charge the case to the Commercial Court against the Company and group to subsidiary claiming that the Administrative Court of First Level on subsidiary defaulted the breach and claimed the damages in the amount contract with recover damage of Baht 6 17.5 million with plus the interest rate at 7.5of 7.5 % per annum starting from the filing date until payment is madecompletion of payment. On May 29September 21, 20122011, the court rendered judgement of dismissal but later on June 20, 2013, subsidiary submitted the litigant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court and on August 9, 2013, the Supreme Adminstrative Court had ordered to set October 2, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On June 22, 2020, the Administrative Court sent a notice scheduling the first trial by setting the first trial date on August 20, 2020 to the Supreme Administrative Court. On August 30, 2020, the Supreme Court has ruled the judgment. The case is final and will issue its rulings. On February 18, 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered to dismiss such case and the case is deemed final. 25.3 On February 5, 2018, the supplier for the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit clarification statement to the Commercial Court requesting by refusing the accusation of the litigant and requested the court for payment of outstanding amount dismissal and also to order the litigant to pay the completed work charge of Baht 23.5 10.9 million, according to the contract, to the subsidiary. On July 21, 2014, the Commercial Court made a sentence to have the subsidiary to pay to the litigant the penalty charge of Baht 11 million with plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from filing date until completion of payment. On May 16, 2018, the Company submitted the testimony to the Court and the mediation was conducted on August 28, 2018 but could not come to an agreement. On October 1, 2018, the Court ordered the Company and the Party to determine the dispute and scheduled the date for witness investigation from both parties in March 2019. On March 5 - 7, 2019, both parties were conducting the witness examination of each party but the witness examination of the Company was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of additional witness examination on April 26, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on May 29, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on July 12, 2019. On July 12, 2019, the Company has proceeded with the witness examination. Both parties announced to finish the witness investigation. The Court ordered to prepare an announcement for closing the case to be filed to the Court within August 15, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Court ordered the Company to pay the outstanding amount for goods in the amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from February 6, 2018 until settlement is completed. On February 7, 2020, the Company had filed an appeal and requested for a case enforcement relief. On June 30, 2020, the Company filed a charge to court requesting to suspend the case execution and the court ruled to permit the case suspension. As the case is under the Appeal Court’s ruling No.2 request to suspend the case execution. On October 15, 2020 the Appeal Court 2 received the petition for appeal and ordered the Company to stay the execution of the sentence for the Company to place collateral in front of the court for the amount of Baht 29.35 million to be settled under the ruling of the Court of First Instance along with interest until the hearing date and 1 year further in the full amount on November 17, 2020. The Appeal Court 2 scheduled the case ruling on December 9, 2020. On February 11, 2021, the Company and the plaintiff were agreed and the Company agreed to pay the debt to the plaintiff amounted Baht 18 million into 3 installments at Baht 2 million, Baht 8 million and Baht 8 million. The plaintiff will not intend to appeal the case and this case is considered as finalized, the Company has recorded the outstanding amount of goods in the interim financial statements. As a result, the Company is not required to provide a provision for contingent liabilities. 25.4 On October 16, 2019, the trade payable of the Company's construction project has filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court in violation of the employment agreement by paying the debt and damages amounting Baht 10.50 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 12, 2020, the Company filed and countersued the plaintiff along with claiming for damages of Baht 29.62 million. On February 24, 2020, the court ordered to extend the two issues settlement date for the company and plaintiff to enter into a mediation process. The mediation was scheduled on March 27, 2020 and the new settlement date, guidance for case proceeding or plaintiff witness investigation were rescheduled to April 21, 2020. On March 27, 2020, the court ordered to dismiss the mediation process on such date and cancelled the settlement date of 2 issues. It scheduled the case proceeding guidance or plaintiff witness investigation on April 21, 2020 due to the COVID-19 situation. On June 5, 2020, the party and the Company scheduled a date for mediation but it could not be settled. The court scheduled the day of settlement of issues and direct the case proceedings or witness investigation in August 2020. On August 4, 2020, the court scheduled the day of settlement of charge, testimony, couterclaim and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties on November 18-20, 2020. On December 25, 2020, the Court had scheduled the witness investigation of plaintiff and defendant. As the case is in the process of witness investigation, the Company had recorded some of the outstanding debt in the interim financial statements. The difference from the outstanding debt and the cause of action, the Company’s management is considered that the Company has approched to defense of the case then the Company is not recorded contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.5 On August 11, 2020 the contractor of a construction company of the Company filed a lawsuit to the Minburi Civil Court on the charge of breaching hire-of-work agreement and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 2,257,000 along with interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the lawsuit date for the principal amount Baht 2,205,179.27 until the payment is settled with the plaintiff. The court scheduled the day of the settlement of issues and defined the case proceeding guidelines or plaintiff’s witness investigation on October 26, 2020. On October 26, 2020, the court ordered to postpone the day of settlement of issues for the mediation between the Company and the contractor outside of the court and postpone the day of settlement of issues or scheduled to withdraw the case or scheduled for compromise again on November 30, 2020. On November 30, 2020 the court ordered the party to schedule the mediation on January 19, 2021 and schedule the witness investigation on March 12, 2021. Later, on March 12, 2021 the Company and contractor have scheduled the mediation but could not negotiate so it went through the court trial. On March 26, 2021 the court ordered the company to pay Baht 1,232,986.60 to the contractor with interest at 7.5 percent p.a. Later, from April 20, 2020 until settlement is complete, the management of the company believes that in such case the Company has information and guideline to fight the case. Therefore, it filed a petition to the Appeal Court for consideration. The Appeal Court required the Company to submit document for trial within May 25, 2021. Presently, the case is under document gathering to file to the Appeal Court and the management of the company has considered that the company has approched to defense. Therefore, the Company has not provided the provision in the interim financial statements. 25.6 On December 16, 2020, the Company had filed the case to Thanyaburi Provincial Court ordered the contractor of a project (defendant) to liable due to breach of agreement and ordered to pay the damages. The Company had requested the defendant to pay Baht 202,329 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal amounted Baht 184,596 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will finish the payment to the plaintiff. The Court had scheduled the first judgment on February 15, 2021. Due to the Coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), the court has extended the case indefinitely. Presently, the case is under the statment submission process. The management has confidence to win the case. The Company has not provided a provision in the interim financial statements. 25.7 On August 1, 2019, the subsidiary is the plaintiff sueing the case against 2 government units as defendant No.1 and No.2 civil court as the black court case Por. 4156/2562 to pay for the surcharge, expense, and damage due to breach of agreement of a construction project of the subsidiary in the amount Baht 28.6 million with interest 7.5% per annum of the principal Baht 26.8 million from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. The court scheduled for plaintiff witness investigation or day of settlement of issues to October 21, 2019. On November 25, 2019, the subsidiary has received the testimony from the parties. As the case is quite complicated in defending, therefore, the Court has given the subsidiary the opportunity to fully defend the case, to examine the testimony, to prepare the witness and documents. On January 30, 2020, the court and both parties proceeded to identify the dispute and schedule the witness investigation. The court scheduled the plaintiff’s witness investigation on July 14-15, 2020 and scheduled the defendant’s witness investigation on July 16-17, 2020. The court will deliver judgment on September 25, 2020. On September 25, 2020 the court ordered the defendant 2 to pay the subsidiary Baht 4.40 million along with the interest rate of 7.5% per annum and defendant 2 to pay off the execution fee on behalf of the subsidiary. The lawyer fee is set at Baht 50,000 and execution fee for defendant 2 only for the amount which the Company won the case and sue defendant 1 to seize the execution fee between the company and defendant 1. On January 22, 2021, the subsidiary had filed to the Appeal Court to ask for the additional damage fees. As the case is under the plaintiff and defendant’s appeal, the management of the subsidiary believes that the case will not have any material impact. Therefore, the subsidiary has not recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 25.8 On November 20, 2019, a subcontractors of the construction project of a subsidiary has filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court in violation of the employment agreement, for unpaid wages and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 1.25 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 4, 2020, the subsidiary filed a testimony and countersued claiming for the remaining damages of Baht 80,791. On February 19, 2020, the plaintiff filed a replication. On March 10, 2020, the court and the party had identified the dispute and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties during July 14 - 17, 2020. On July 15-16, 2020 the court scheduled for witness investigation of 2 parties. Later, on September 8, 2020 the court had a ruling to dismiss the plaintiff and seize the execution fee. The plaintiff submitted a petition for the case appeal which is due to for filing of the appeal on November 30, 2020. However, the party has not filed an appeal in such period so the case is dismissed. 25.9 On June 28, 2020, the subsidiary received the statement of claim from the Civil Court that an insurance company (plaintiff) filed a charge to the subsidiary and group on the breach of subrogation claiming damages and insurance for construction equipment of a construction project of a subsidiary from construction equipment bouncing into the passage way causing damage to the victim’s car. The plaintiff is the insurer who suffers damage and claims the damages for Baht 293,378 along with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until the Subsidiary completion of payment and group can settle full paymentcost of execution of Baht 0.1 million for the litigant. The court required the subsidiary to file a statement to fight the case within July 27, 2020 and scheduled the day of settlement of issues, case proceedings and witness investigation on August 24, 2020. On July 22, 2020However, the management of the subsidiary had appointed the case’s attorney. Later on August 24, 2020, the Court had appointed fact for settlement the issues and set the case guidelines or plaintiff witness. But the proxy of the plaintiff’s lawyer and the proxy of the subsidiary had filed to adjourn the case and the Court allowed to adjourn and appointed for settlement the issues on November 30, 2020. Later on November 30, 2020, the Court had appointed for settlement the issues and scheduled date of witness on May 17, 2021. Currently, the case is pending the witness of plaintiff and defendant. The Subsidiary’s management has considered from the issues of the case and has the opinion that the subsidiary believe that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.10 On December 16, 2020, the subcontractor of the construction project of a subsidiary had sued the subsidiary on the charge of breach of agreement and claiming damages for the construction fee that the subsidiary had owed to the plaintiff amounted Baht 3,216,157.29 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal of Baht 3,034,707.10 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will complete the payment. On December 20, 2020litigation, the subsidiary had received the copy of charge and the Court required to submit a defense statement on January 19, 2021 until the Court set then submitted an appointment for settlement the issues and set guidelines for lawsuit or examination of the plaintiff's witness on February 23, 2021. Presently, the subsidiary has extended the testimony to court. Currently, the case is pending the submission of the defence of the case. The subsidiary's management believes that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded a provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.11 On January 25, 2021, the contractors of the construction project of the 2 subsidiaries had jointly filed a charge against the company as plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 , respectively, on breach of agreement claiming that the subsidiary has not yet paid appeal for the hire of work and claimed for Civil Court’s judgement to the accrued hire of work in the amount of Baht 1,416,554.60 withcourt.

Litigations. 25.1 27.1 On December 6, 2011, a government agency sent a letter to a bank asking to hold the bank guarantee of Baht 20 million that the Company deposited as the mortgage since the said agency claimed that the Company failed to perform according to the contract. On December 29, 2011, the Company filed the abovementioned agency and its parties to the Central Administrative Court for the sentence of releasing the captioned bank guarantee with the compensation charge in total Baht 27.5 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum including any related fee from the next day of filing date until completion of payment since the Company considered that such a claim was not caused by the Company’s fault. On the contrary, the Company could not perform according to the contract due to the law of restricted areas. On May 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Court had rendered judgement and ordered the government agency to return the Baht 20 million bank guarantee dated 31 August 2007 to the Company under the condition that both the Company and bank jointly shared the responsibility to pay the total of Baht 10 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum from the next day of filing date (29 December 2011) until completion of payment or within 60 days starting from the date of final judgement whereas all remaining parts to be dismissed. On June 19, 2015, the government agency made an appeal to the Central Administrative Court and later on October 16, 2015, the Company made an appeal clarification to the court. Presently, the Central Administrative Court is considering the appeal clarification. However, the Company has already recorded the contingent liabilities of Baht 20 million arisen in the interim financial statements. 27.2 On December 4, 2007, the subsidiary filed a suit to the Central Administrative Court against a government agency (litigant) in order for payment of a penalty charge of Baht 13.4 million for termination of construction contract by deducting the advance payment of Baht 7.7 million as per the contract and the total of damages to be paid Baht 6.1 million plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. 25.2 However, the litigant submitted its pleading to the Central Administration Court on August 20, 2008 claiming that the amount of damages was overrated and the third resolution of the Compensation Committee was made on July 16, 2008 to order the government agency to pay the compensation of Baht 0.8 million to the subsidiary. Therefore, it ordered the subsidiary to return the amount of Baht 6.8 million to the government agency, respectively. After that, several amendments to the petition and pleadings of both parties were made. On April 20, 2010, the litigant submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administrative Court about the fee of the advance payment bank guarantee of Baht 0.1 million and the litigant asked the court for dismissal and order the subsidiary to return the litigant the advance amount of Baht 7.7 million in order to proceed as per the employment contract. The subsidiary submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administration Court on January 24, 2012 requesting the court to render judgement ordering the litigant to offset the compensation amount of Baht 19.4 million with the amount of Baht 7.7 million advanced to the subsidiary to proceed as per the employment contract as well as paying the damage amount of Baht 12.5 million to the subsidiary plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. The litigant submitted its refusal pleadings and asked the court for dismissal and returning of the aforementioned advance payment amount as well. On July 31, 2012, the court rendered judgement ordering the subsidiary to receive Baht 3.3 million and also return Baht 4.4 million to the litigant. The subsidiary then submitted its appeal for the judgement to the Supreme Administrative Court on August 29, 2012. On April 30, 2020, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the subsidiary to indemnify the party in the amount of Baht 3.75 million. Later, on July 20, 2020 the subsidiary has already paid the indemnity to the party. 27.3 On April 24, 2008, a private company and group (party) filed a charge against the Company and group to the Administrative Court of First Level on the breach and claimed the damages in the amount of Baht 6 million with the interest rate at 7.5% 7.5 percent per annum from the filing date until payment is made. On May 29, 2012, the court rendered judgement of dismissal but later on June 20, 2013, the litigant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court and on August 9, 2013, the Supreme Adminstrative Court had ordered to set October 2, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On June 22, 2020, the Administrative Court sent a notice scheduling the first trial by setting the first trial date on August 20, 2020 to the Supreme Administrative Court. On August 30, 2020Presently, the Supreme Court has ruled the judgment. The case is final and will issue its rulings. On February 18, 2021, under consideration of the Supreme Administrative Court and the management believes that the Company will not suffer significant damage (if any). Such lawsuit has not recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 27.4 On September 14, 2015, the plaintiff (the litigant) filed a lawsuit against a government agency and 8 co-defendants to the Administrative Court for compensation of damages from loss of income of Baht 87.5 million. The Company is sued as the fifth defendant. On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an objection against the plaintiff’s request to waive the court fee. Later, on October 28, 2016, the Company filed a statement to fight the case to the Administrative Court. On January 12, 2017, the Company has just submitted the statement of defence to the court and the court ordered the Company to submit the additional statement within 30 days. During February 7, 2017 to March 31, 2017 the Company had requested to extend the submission of the additional clarification to the Administration Court. Later on April 4, 2017, the Administrative Court had ordered the Company to submit the additional clarification within May 12, 2017. On June 12, 2017, the Company submitted the additional statement to the Administration Court. On January 9, 2019, the Administrative Court ordered the date of January 31, 2019 to be the last day of investigation. On April 29, 2019, the Administrtive Court had ordered to dismiss such cancel the ending date for seeking facts and had ordered to set May 13, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. Since this case is under consideration of the Administrative Court, the Company’s management is confident that the Company will not incur any significant loss (if any) from this litigation. Any provision of liabilities then have not yet been recorded in the interim financial statements. 27.5 On December 6, 2017, the co-contractor of the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the arbitrator requesting the Company to return the collateral held at the amount of SGD 1.6 million or equivalent to Baht 39.4 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until completion of payment. On June 21, 2018, the arbitration Institution had announced the appointment of the chairman of arbitration. On July 17, 2018, the Company and the case Party were present before the arbitrator for determination of the dispute and set the date for witness investigation. On November 22, 2018, the witness examination was completely made by the arbitration and both parties. On January 23, 2019, both parties submitted their closing statements within the due date for final decision of the arbitration. On July 9, 2019, the arbitrator had a meeting to explain the opinion on the case. The 2 arbitrators had an opinion to return the sum under the guarantee letter of SGD 1.6 million with an interest rate 7.5% per annum from December 6, 2017 to the Party and 1 arbitrator had an opinion for the company not to return the money of the full amount in the guarantee letter to the Party. If both parties do not agree with any opinion, a petition should be prepared to explain a reason to support within 30 days from such date. On August 7, 2019, the Company submitted a petition to explain the opinion of the company to the arbitrator explaining and giving opinion on issues that they do not reach agreement with the arbitrator’s explanation. On September 4, 2019, the arbitrator institute notified the opinion of the arbitrator by standing on the explanation that was informed to every party. On November 13, 2019, both parties have agreed to enter into a compromise agreement to pay in accordance with the award of the arbitrator by offsetting the debt. The outstanding amount of principal and interest from the date of lawsuit to October 31, 2019 that the Company has to pay to the claimant is deemed finaltotaled SGD 1,726,706.70 or approximately Baht 38.89 million by dividing into 2 installments : November 15, 2019 amount of Baht 36.25 million and February 28, 2020 amount of Baht 2.64 million, respectively. The Company paid the principal and interest to the claimant within the specified time. 25.3 27.6 On February 5, 2018, the supplier for the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the Commercial Court requesting for payment of outstanding amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from filing date until completion of payment. On May 16, 2018, the Company submitted the testimony to the Court and the mediation was conducted on August 28, 2018 but could not come to an agreement. On October 1, 2018, the Court ordered the Company and the Party to determine the dispute and scheduled the date for witness investigation from both parties in March 2019. On Later, on March 5 - 7, 2019, both parties were conducting the witness examination of each party but the witness examination of the Company was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of additional witness examination on April 26, 2019. On Later on April 26, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on May 29, 2019. On Later on May 29, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on July 12, 2019. On Later on July 12, 2019, the Company has proceeded with the witness examination. Both parties announced to finish the witness investigation. The Court ordered to prepare an announcement for closing the case to be filed to the Court within August 15, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Court ordered the Company to pay the outstanding amount for goods in the amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from February 6, 2018 until settlement is completed. On February 7, 2020, the Company had filed an appeal and requested for a case enforcement relief. On June 30, 2020, the Company filed a charge to court requesting to suspend the case execution and the court ruled to permit the case suspension. As the case is under the Appeal Court’s ruling No.2 request to suspend the case execution. On October 15, 2020 Since the case is under consideration of the Appeal Court 2 received the petition for appeal and ordered the Company to stay the execution of the sentence for the Company to place collateral in front of the court for the amount of Baht 29.35 million to be settled under the ruling of the Court of First Instance along with interest until the hearing date and 1 year further in the full amount on November 17, 2020. The Appeal Court 2 scheduled the case ruling on December 9, 2020. On February 11, 2021, the Company and the plaintiff were agreed and the Company agreed to pay the debt to the plaintiff amounted Baht 18 million into 3 installments at Baht 2 million, Baht 8 million and Baht 8 million. The plaintiff will not intend to appeal the case and this case is considered as finalizedCourt, the Company has recorded the outstanding amount of goods in the interim financial statements. As a result, the Company is not required to provide a provision for contingent liabilities. 25.4 27.7 On October 16, 20192017, the trade payable Nakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court accepted a case between a litigant and the government agencies, requesting the Court to issue an order as relating to the following; 1) Requesting that the government agencies revoke the permission to use the water from a reservoir that had been granted to the associate. 2) Requesting the revocation of the Company's construction Environmental Impact Assessment Report for potash and rock salt mining, and 3) Requesting the revocation the report on changes in project has details and the associate’s environmental impact prevention and amelioration measures and environmental impact inspection measure. On January 15, 2018, the Nakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court issued a summons to the associate and the associate submitted a plea statement to the court. On October 19, 2018, the litigant filed a lawsuit an objection against the plea statement with the Civil Nakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court. On November 2, 2018 the Nakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court in violation ordered the associate to lodge an additional plea statement. On November 28, 2018, the associate had submitted additional plea statement to the Court request extension of the employment agreement term for additional plea statement by paying the debt and damages amounting Baht 10.50 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum 30 days from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 12, 2020, the Company filed and countersued the plaintiff along with claiming for damages of Baht 29.62 million. On February 24, 2020, the court ordered to extend the two issues settlement date for the company and plaintiff to enter into a mediation process. The mediation was scheduled on March 27, 2020 and the new settlement original due date, guidance for case proceeding or plaintiff witness investigation were rescheduled to April 21, 2020. On March 27, 2020, the court ordered to dismiss the mediation process on such date and cancelled the settlement date of 2 issues. It scheduled the case proceeding guidance or plaintiff witness investigation on April 21, 2020 due to the COVID-19 situation. On June 5, 2020, the party and the Company scheduled a date for mediation but it could not be settled. The court scheduled the day of settlement of issues and direct the case proceedings or witness investigation in August 2020. On August 4, 2020, the court scheduled the day of settlement of charge, testimony, couterclaim and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties on November 18-20, 2020. On December 2527, 20202018, the Court associate had scheduled submitted the witness investigation of plaintiff and defendant. As the case is in the process of witness investigation, the Company had recorded some of the outstanding debt in the interim financial statements. The difference from the outstanding debt and the cause of action, the Company’s management is considered that the Company has approched to defense of the case then the Company is not recorded contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.5 On August 11, 2020 the contractor of a construction company of the Company filed a lawsuit additional statement to the Minburi Civil Court on the charge of breaching hire-of-work agreement and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 2,257,000 along with interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the lawsuit date for the principal amount Baht 2,205,179.27 until the payment is settled with the plaintiffNakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court. The court scheduled the day of the settlement of issues and defined the case proceeding guidelines or plaintiff’s witness investigation on October 26, 2020. On October 26, 2020, the court ordered to postpone the day of settlement of issues for the mediation between the Company and the contractor outside of the court and postpone the day of settlement of issues or scheduled to withdraw the case or scheduled for compromise again on November 30, 2020. On November 30, 2020 the court ordered the party to schedule the mediation on January 19, 2021 and schedule the witness investigation on March 12, 2021. Later, on March 12, 2021 the Company and contractor have scheduled the mediation but could not negotiate so it went through the court trial. On March 26, 2021 the court ordered the company to pay Baht 1,232,986.60 to the contractor with interest at 7.5 percent p.a. Later, from April 20, 2020 until settlement is complete, the management of the company believes that in such case the Company has information and guideline to fight the case. Therefore, it filed a petition to the Appeal Court for consideration. The Appeal Court required the Company to submit document for trial within May 25, 2021. PresentlyAt present, the case is under document gathering consideration of the Court. If the Court considers the evidence documents to file be insufficient, the Court may order the plaintiff or the defendant to provide additional documents otherwise the Appeal Court court shall issue the appointment warrant to identify the disputes and determine the judgement date. The management of the company has considered associate, by the internal legal counselor’s comment, realised that the company associate has approched to defense. Thereforeproceeded in full compliance with the principles, procedures and conditions stipulated by the law and therefore believes that the case will not have any material impact on the business of the associate. 27.8 On June 28, 2018, the Company has not provided Nakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court had ordered to accept the provision in complaint between a litigant and government agencies, requesting the interim financial statements. 25.6 Court to issue an order to revoke the environmental impact assessment report for the Cogeneration Power Plant for the associate’s Potash and rock salt project. On December 16October 11, 20202018, the Company associate had filed submitted the case claim to Thanyaburi Provincial Court ordered be the contractor of a project (defendant) disputant in order to liable due to breach of agreement and ordered to pay declare the damages. The Company had requested the defendant to pay Baht 202,329 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal amounted Baht 184,596 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will finish the payment fact to the plaintiffCourt regarding the litigation between the litigant and the government agencies. The Court had scheduled an opinion on November 1, 2018 that the first judgment on February 15, 2021associate’s claim is not complete. Due The Court had ordered the associate to rectify the claim. The associate had already submitted the revised claim to the Coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID-19)Court on November 28, 2018. On February 7, 2019, the associate had received the notice of court order to amend the claim again. On March 1, 2019, the associate had followed the Court’s order and the Court had alllowed the claim to be the disputant as a joint prosecution. This prosecutor was set to be the case No.6 and it had the same right as the original prosecutor. Later on September 26, 2019, the Company received the letter notifying of the court order. The case complainer has objected the testimony and the court ordered to receive the objection to such testimony on September 19, 2019. If the Company intends to check and make a copy of the objection to the testimony, the court gave permission. If the Company intends to give additional testimony specific to the related area, it has extended to inform the case indefinitelycourt within 30 days from the court order letter receiving date. The associate has filed a petition to process making a copy of the objection to the testimony and filed additional testimony to court on October 4, 2019. Presently, the case it is under court consideration and to issue an instruction order requiring the statment submission processperiod of time for the associate to prepare further testimony. The management of the associate, by the internal legal counselor’s comment, realised that the associate has confidence to win proceeded in full compliance with the case. The Company has principles, procedures and conditions stipulated by the law and therefore believes that the case will not provided a provision in have any material impact on the interim financial statements.business of the associate 25.7 27.9 On August 1, 2019, the subsidiary is the plaintiff sueing the case against 2 government units as defendant No.1 and No.2 civil court as the black court case Por. 4156/2562 to pay for the surcharge, expense, and damage due to breach of agreement of a construction project of the subsidiary in the amount Baht 28.6 million with interest 7.5% per annum of the principal Baht 26.8 million from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. The court scheduled for plaintiff witness investigation or day of settlement of issues to October 21, 2019. On November 25, 2019, the subsidiary has received the testimony from the parties. As the case is quite complicated in defending, therefore, the Court has given the subsidiary the opportunity to fully defend the case, to examine the testimony, to prepare the witness and documents. On January 30, 2020, the court and both parties proceeded to identify the dispute and schedule the witness investigation. The court scheduled the plaintiff’s witness investigation on July 14-15, 2020 and scheduled the defendant’s witness investigation on July 16-17, 2020. The court will deliver judgment on September 25, 2020. On September 25, 2020 the court ordered the defendant 2 to pay the subsidiary Baht 4.40 million along with the interest rate of 7.5% per annum and defendant 2 to pay off the execution fee on behalf of the subsidiary. The lawyer fee is set at Baht 50,000 and execution fee for defendant 2 only for the amount which the Company won the case and sue defendant 1 to seize the execution fee between the company and defendant 1. On January 22, 2021, the subsidiary had filed to the Appeal Court to ask for the additional damage fees. As the case is under the plaintiff and defendant’s appeal, the management of the subsidiary believes that the case will not have any material impact. Therefore, the subsidiary has not recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 25.8 On November 20, 2019, a subcontractors of the construction project of a subsidiary has filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court in violation of the employment agreement, for unpaid wages and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 1.25 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 4, 2020, the subsidiary filed a testimony and countersued claiming for the remaining damages of Baht 80,791. On February 19, 2020, the plaintiff filed a replication. On March 10, 2020, the court and the party had identified the dispute and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties during July 14 - 17, 2020. On July 15-16, 2020 the court scheduled for witness investigation of 2 parties. Later, on September 8, 2020 the court had a ruling to dismiss the plaintiff and seize the execution fee. The plaintiff submitted a petition for the case appeal which is due to for filing of the appeal on November 30, 2020. However, the party has not filed an appeal in such period so the case is dismissed. 25.9 On June 28, 2020, the subsidiary received the statement of claim from the Civil Court that an insurance company (plaintiff) filed a charge to the subsidiary and group on the breach of subrogation claiming damages and insurance for construction equipment of a construction project of a subsidiary from construction equipment bouncing into the passage way causing damage to the victim’s car. The plaintiff is the insurer who suffers damage and claims the damages for Baht 293,378 along with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until the Subsidiary and group can settle full payment. The court required the subsidiary to file a statement to fight the case within July 27, 2020 and scheduled the day of settlement of issues, case proceedings and witness investigation on August 24, 2020. On July 22, 2020, the management of the subsidiary had appointed the case’s attorney. Later on August 24, 2020, the Court had appointed for settlement the issues and set the case guidelines or plaintiff witness. But the proxy of the plaintiff’s lawyer and the proxy of the subsidiary had filed to adjourn the case and the Court allowed to adjourn and appointed for settlement the issues on November 30, 2020. Later on November 30, 2020, the Court had appointed for settlement the issues and scheduled date of witness on May 17, 2021. Currently, the case is pending the witness of plaintiff and defendant. The Subsidiary’s management has considered from the issues of the case and has the opinion that the subsidiary believe that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.10 On December 16, 2020, the subcontractor of the construction project of a subsidiary had sued the subsidiary on the charge of breach of agreement and claiming damages for the construction fee that the subsidiary had owed to the plaintiff amounted Baht 3,216,157.29 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal of Baht 3,034,707.10 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will complete the payment. On December 20, 2020, the subsidiary had received the copy of charge and the Court required to submit a defense statement on January 19, 2021 until the Court set an appointment for settlement the issues and set guidelines for lawsuit or examination of the plaintiff's witness on February 23, 2021. Presently, the subsidiary has extended the testimony to court. Currently, the case is pending the submission of the defence of the case. The subsidiary's management believes that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded a provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.11 On January 25, 2021, the contractors of the construction project of the 2 subsidiaries had jointly filed a charge against the company as plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 , respectively, on breach of agreement claiming that the subsidiary has not yet paid for the hire of work and claimed for the accrued hire of work in the amount of Baht 1,416,554.60 with

Litigations. 25.1 26.1 On December 6, 2011, a government agency sent a letter to a bank asking to hold the bank guarantee of Baht 20 million that the Company deposited as the mortgage since the said agency claimed that the Company failed to perform according to the contract. On December 29, 2011, the Company filed the abovementioned agency and its parties to the Central Administrative Court for the sentence of releasing the captioned bank guarantee with the compensation charge in total Baht 27.5 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum including any related fee from the next day of filing date until completion of payment since the Company considered that such a claim was not caused by the Company’s fault. On the contrary, the Company could not perform according to the contract due to the law of restricted areas. On May 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Court had rendered judgement and ordered the government agency to return the Baht 20 million bank guarantee dated 31 August 2007 to the Company under the condition that both the Company and bank jointly shared the responsibility to pay the total of Baht 10 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum from the next day of filing date (29 December 2011) until completion of payment or within 60 days starting from the date of final judgement whereas all remaining parts to be dismissed. On June 19, 2015, the government agency made an appeal to the Central Administrative Court and later on October 16, 2015, the Company made an appeal clarification to the court. Presently, the Central Administrative Court is considering the appeal clarification. However, the Company has already recorded the contingent liabilities of Baht 20 million arisen in the interim financial statements. 26.2 On December 4, 2007, the subsidiary filed a suit to the Central Administrative Court against a government agency (litigant) in order for payment of a penalty charge of Baht 13.4 million for termination of construction contract by deducting the advance payment of Baht 7.7 million as per the contract and the total of damages to be paid Baht 6.1 million plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. 25.2 However, the litigant submitted its pleading to the Central Administration Court on August 20, 2008 claiming that the amount of damages was overrated and the third resolution of the Compensation Committee was made on July 16, 2008 to order the government agency to pay the compensation of Baht 0.8 million to the subsidiary. Therefore, it ordered the subsidiary to return the amount of Baht 6.8 million to the government agency, respectively. After that, several amendments to the petition and pleadings of both parties were made. On April 20, 2010, the litigant submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administrative Court about the fee of the advance payment bank guarantee of Baht 0.1 million and the litigant asked the court for dismissal and order the subsidiary to return the litigant the advance amount of Baht 7.7 million in order to proceed as per the employment contract. The subsidiary submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administration Court on January 24, 2012 requesting the court to render judgement ordering the litigant to offset the compensation amount of Baht 19.4 million with the amount of Baht 7.7 million advanced to the subsidiary to proceed as per the employment contract as well as paying the damage amount of Baht 12.5 million to the subsidiary plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. The litigant submitted its refusal pleadings and asked the court for dismissal and returning of the aforementioned advance payment amount as well. On July 31, 2012, the court rendered judgement ordering the subsidiary to receive Baht 3.3 million and also return Baht 4.4 million to the litigant. The subsidiary then submitted its appeal for the judgement to the Supreme Administrative Court on August 29, 2012. Since the outcome of the case is not final, the subsidiary has not yet recorded in the interim financial statements. 26.3 On April 24, 2008, a private company and group its partner (partylitigant) filed a charge against the Company and group suit to the Administrative Court of First Level Instance against the Company and its partner on violation against the breach contract and claimed the sued for damages in the amount of Baht 6 million with plus the interest rate at of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until payment is madecompletion of payment. On May 29, 2012, the court rendered judgement of dismissal but later on June 20, 2013, the litigant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court and on August 9, 2013, the Supreme Adminstrative Court had ordered to set October 2, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. Since this case remains under the consideration of the Supreme Administrative Court and since the Company’s management has confidence that the Company will not incur any significant loss (if any) from this litigation, any provisions of liabilities then have not yet been recorded in the interim financial statements. 26.4 On June 22September 14, 20202015, the plaintiff (the litigant) filed a lawsuit against a government agency and 8 co-defendants to the Administrative Court for compensation of damages from loss of income of Baht 87.5 million. The Company is sued as the fifth defendant. On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an objection against the plaintiff’s request to waive the court fee. Later, on October 28, 2016, the Company filed a statement to fight the case to the Administrative Court. On January 12, 2017, the Company has just submitted the statement of defence to the court and the court ordered the Company to submit the additional statement within 30 days. During February 7, 2017 to March 31, 2017 the Company had requested to extend the submission of the additional clarification to the Administration Court. Later on April 4, 2017, the Administrative Court sent a notice scheduling had ordered the first trial by setting Company to submit the first trial date on August 20additional clarification within May 12, 2020 2017. On June 12, 2017, the Company submitted the additional statement to the Supreme Administrative Administration Court. On August 30January 9, 20202019, the Supreme Court has ruled the judgment. The case is final and will issue its rulings. On February 18, 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the date of January 31, 2019 to dismiss such be the last day of investigation. On April 29, 2019, the Administrtive Court had ordered to cancel the ending date for seeking facts and had ordered to set May 13, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. Since this case is under consideration of the Administrative Court, the Company’s management is confident that the Company will not incur any significant loss (if any) from this litigation. Any provision of liabilities then have not yet been recorded in the interim financial statements. 26.5 On December 6, 2017, the co-contractor of the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the arbitrator requesting the Company to return the collateral held at the amount of SGD 1.6 million or equivalent to Baht 39.4 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until completion of payment. On June 21, 2018, the arbitration Institution had announced the appointment of the chairman of arbitration. On July 17, 2018, the Company and the case Party were present before the arbitrator for determination of the dispute and set the date for witness investigation. On November 22, 2018, the witness examination was completely made by the arbitration and both parties. On January 23, 2019, both parties submitted their closing statements within the due date for final decision of the arbitration. On July 9, 2019, the arbitrator had a meeting to explain the opinion on the case. The 2 arbitrators had an opinion to return the sum under the guarantee letter of SGD 1.6 million with an interest rate 7.5% per annum from December 6, 2017 to the Party and 1 arbitrator had an opinion for the company not to return the money of the full amount in the guarantee letter to the Party. If both parties do not agree with any opinion, a petition should be prepared to explain a reason to support within 30 days from such date. On August 7, 2019, the Company submitted a petition to explain the opinion of the company to the arbitrator explaining and giving opinion on issues that they do not reach agreement with the arbitrator’s explanation. On September 4, 2019, the arbitrator institute notified the opinion of the arbitrator by standing on the explanation that was informed to every party. On November 13, 2019, both parties have agreed to enter into a compromise agreement to pay in accordance with the award of the arbitrator by offsetting the debt. The outstanding amount of principal and interest from the date of lawsuit to October 31, 2019 that the Company has to pay to the claimant is deemed finaltotaled SGD 1,726,706.70 or approximately Baht 38.89 million by dividing into 2 installments : November 15, 2019 amount of Baht 36.25 million and February 28, 2020 amount of Baht 2.64 million, respectively. The Company paid the principal and interest to the claimant within the specified time. 25.3 26.6 On February 5, 2018, the supplier for the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the Commercial Court requesting for payment of outstanding amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from filing date until completion of payment. On May 16, 2018, the Company submitted the testimony to the Court and the mediation was conducted on August 28, 2018 but could not come to an agreement. On October 1, 2018, the Court ordered the Company and the Party to determine the dispute and scheduled the date for witness investigation from both parties in March 2019. On Later, on March 5 - 7, 2019, both parties were conducting the witness examination of each party but the witness examination of the Company was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of additional witness examination on April 26, 2019. On Later on April 26, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on May 29, 2019. On Later on May 29, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on July 12, 2019. On Later on July 12, 2019, the Company has proceeded with the witness examination. Both parties announced to finish the witness investigation. The Court ordered to prepare an announcement for closing the case to be filed to the Court within August 15, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Court ordered the Company to pay the outstanding amount for goods in the amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from February 6, 2018 until settlement is completed. On February 7, 2020, the Company had filed an appeal and requested for a case enforcement relief. On June 30, 2020, the Company filed a charge to court requesting to suspend the case execution and the court ruled to permit the case suspension. As the The case is under now awaiting the Appeal Courtplaintiff’s ruling No.2 request to suspend the case execution. On October 15, 2020 the Appeal Court 2 received the petition for appeal and ordered the Company to stay the execution of the sentence filing for the Company to place collateral in front of the court for the amount of Baht 29.35 million to be settled under the ruling of the Court of First Instance along with interest until the hearing date and 1 year further in the full amount on November 17, 2020appeal correction. The Appeal Court 2 scheduled the case ruling on December 9, 2020. On February 11, 2021, the Company and the plaintiff were agreed and the Company agreed to pay the debt to the plaintiff amounted Baht 18 million into 3 installments at Baht 2 million, Baht 8 million and Baht 8 million. The plaintiff will not intend to appeal the case and this case is considered as finalized, the Company has outstanding payment goods had already been recorded the outstanding amount of goods in the interim financial statements. As a result, the The Company is did not required have to provide a provision for contingent liabilities. 25.4 26.7 On October 16, 20192017, the trade payable of the Company's construction project has filed Nakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court accepted a lawsuit with the Civil Court in violation of the employment agreement by paying the debt and damages amounting Baht 10.50 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 12, 2020, the Company filed and countersued the plaintiff along with claiming for damages of Baht 29.62 million. On February 24, 2020, the court ordered to extend the two issues settlement date for the company and plaintiff to enter into case between a mediation process. The mediation was scheduled on March 27, 2020 litigant and the new settlement dategovernment agencies, guidance for case proceeding or plaintiff witness investigation were rescheduled requesting the Court to April 21, 2020. On March 27, 2020, the court ordered to dismiss the mediation process on such date and cancelled the settlement date of 2 issues. It scheduled the case proceeding guidance or plaintiff witness investigation on April 21, 2020 due issue an order as relating to the COVID-19 situation. On June 5, 2020, the party and the Company scheduled a date for mediation but it could not be settled. The court scheduled the day of settlement of issues and direct the case proceedings or witness investigation in August 2020. On August 4, 2020, the court scheduled the day of settlement of charge, testimony, couterclaim and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties on November 18-20, 2020. On December 25, 2020, the Court had scheduled the witness investigation of plaintiff and defendant. As the case is in the process of witness investigation, the Company had recorded some of the outstanding debt in the interim financial statements. The difference from the outstanding debt and the cause of action, the Company’s management is considered following; 1) Requesting that the Company has approched government agencies revoke the permission to defense of use the case then the Company is not recorded contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.5 On August 11, 2020 the contractor of water from a construction company of the Company filed a lawsuit reservoir that had been granted to the Minburi Civil Court on the charge of breaching hire-of-work agreement and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 2,257,000 along with interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the lawsuit date for the principal amount Baht 2,205,179.27 until the payment is settled with the plaintiff. The court scheduled the day of the settlement of issues and defined the case proceeding guidelines or plaintiff’s witness investigation on October 26, 2020. On October 26, 2020, the court ordered to postpone the day of settlement of issues for the mediation between the Company and the contractor outside of the court and postpone the day of settlement of issues or scheduled to withdraw the case or scheduled for compromise again on November 30, 2020. On November 30, 2020 the court ordered the party to schedule the mediation on January 19, 2021 and schedule the witness investigation on March 12, 2021. Later, on March 12, 2021 the Company and contractor have scheduled the mediation but could not negotiate so it went through the court trial. On March 26, 2021 the court ordered the company to pay Baht 1,232,986.60 to the contractor with interest at 7.5 percent p.a. Later, from April 20, 2020 until settlement is complete, the management of the company believes that in such case the Company has information and guideline to fight the case. Therefore, it filed a petition to the Appeal Court for consideration. The Appeal Court required the Company to submit document for trial within May 25, 2021. Presently, the case is under document gathering to file to the Appeal Court and the management of the company has considered that the company has approched to defense. Therefore, the Company has not provided the provision in the interim financial statementsassociate. 25.6 On December 16, 2020, the Company had filed the case to Thanyaburi Provincial Court ordered the contractor of a project (defendant) to liable due to breach of agreement and ordered to pay the damages. The Company had requested the defendant to pay Baht 202,329 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal amounted Baht 184,596 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will finish the payment to the plaintiff. The Court had scheduled the first judgment on February 15, 2021. Due to the Coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), the court has extended the case indefinitely. Presently, the case is under the statment submission process. The management has confidence to win the case. The Company has not provided a provision in the interim financial statements. 25.7 On August 1, 2019, the subsidiary is the plaintiff sueing the case against 2 government units as defendant No.1 and No.2 civil court as the black court case Por. 4156/2562 to pay for the surcharge, expense, and damage due to breach of agreement of a construction project of the subsidiary in the amount Baht 28.6 million with interest 7.5% per annum of the principal Baht 26.8 million from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. The court scheduled for plaintiff witness investigation or day of settlement of issues to October 21, 2019. On November 25, 2019, the subsidiary has received the testimony from the parties. As the case is quite complicated in defending, therefore, the Court has given the subsidiary the opportunity to fully defend the case, to examine the testimony, to prepare the witness and documents. On January 30, 2020, the court and both parties proceeded to identify the dispute and schedule the witness investigation. The court scheduled the plaintiff’s witness investigation on July 14-15, 2020 and scheduled the defendant’s witness investigation on July 16-17, 2020. The court will deliver judgment on September 25, 2020. On September 25, 2020 the court ordered the defendant 2 to pay the subsidiary Baht 4.40 million along with the interest rate of 7.5% per annum and defendant 2 to pay off the execution fee on behalf of the subsidiary. The lawyer fee is set at Baht 50,000 and execution fee for defendant 2 only for the amount which the Company won the case and sue defendant 1 to seize the execution fee between the company and defendant 1. On January 22, 2021, the subsidiary had filed to the Appeal Court to ask for the additional damage fees. As the case is under the plaintiff and defendant’s appeal, the management of the subsidiary believes that the case will not have any material impact. Therefore, the subsidiary has not recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 25.8 On November 20, 2019, a subcontractors of the construction project of a subsidiary has filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court in violation of the employment agreement, for unpaid wages and claiming damages in the amount of Baht 1.25 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from the sueing date onwards until payment is complete. On February 4, 2020, the subsidiary filed a testimony and countersued claiming for the remaining damages of Baht 80,791. On February 19, 2020, the plaintiff filed a replication. On March 10, 2020, the court and the party had identified the dispute and scheduled the witness investigation of both parties during July 14 - 17, 2020. On July 15-16, 2020 the court scheduled for witness investigation of 2 parties. Later, on September 8, 2020 the court had a ruling to dismiss the plaintiff and seize the execution fee. The plaintiff submitted a petition for the case appeal which is due to for filing of the appeal on November 30, 2020. However, the party has not filed an appeal in such period so the case is dismissed. 25.9 On June 28, 2020, the subsidiary received the statement of claim from the Civil Court that an insurance company (plaintiff) filed a charge to the subsidiary and group on the breach of subrogation claiming damages and insurance for construction equipment of a construction project of a subsidiary from construction equipment bouncing into the passage way causing damage to the victim’s car. The plaintiff is the insurer who suffers damage and claims the damages for Baht 293,378 along with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until the Subsidiary and group can settle full payment. The court required the subsidiary to file a statement to fight the case within July 27, 2020 and scheduled the day of settlement of issues, case proceedings and witness investigation on August 24, 2020. On July 22, 2020, the management of the subsidiary had appointed the case’s attorney. Later on August 24, 2020, the Court had appointed for settlement the issues and set the case guidelines or plaintiff witness. But the proxy of the plaintiff’s lawyer and the proxy of the subsidiary had filed to adjourn the case and the Court allowed to adjourn and appointed for settlement the issues on November 30, 2020. Later on November 30, 2020, the Court had appointed for settlement the issues and scheduled date of witness on May 17, 2021. Currently, the case is pending the witness of plaintiff and defendant. The Subsidiary’s management has considered from the issues of the case and has the opinion that the subsidiary believe that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.10 On December 16, 2020, the subcontractor of the construction project of a subsidiary had sued the subsidiary on the charge of breach of agreement and claiming damages for the construction fee that the subsidiary had owed to the plaintiff amounted Baht 3,216,157.29 with interest rate 7.5% per annum of the principal of Baht 3,034,707.10 from the suing date onwards until the defendant will complete the payment. On December 20, 2020, the subsidiary had received the copy of charge and the Court required to submit a defense statement on January 19, 2021 until the Court set an appointment for settlement the issues and set guidelines for lawsuit or examination of the plaintiff's witness on February 23, 2021. Presently, the subsidiary has extended the testimony to court. Currently, the case is pending the submission of the defence of the case. The subsidiary's management believes that the case will not have any material impact of the subsidiary. The subsidiary has not recorded a provision for contingent liabilities in the interim financial statements. 25.11 On January 25, 2021, the contractors of the construction project of the 2 subsidiaries had jointly filed a charge against the company as plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 , respectively, on breach of agreement claiming that the subsidiary has not yet paid for the hire of work and claimed for the accrued hire of work in the amount of Baht 1,416,554.60 with