Loan and Litigation Without a Written Agreement沒有書面協議的貸款和訴訟
- Kit Amatyakul
- Sep 16
- 5 min read
Loan Agreements 貸款協議
Normally, a loan does not need to be in written form. However, the law requires that there be written evidence signed by the borrower if the loan amount exceeds 2,000 Baht, in order for the lender to be able to file a lawsuit to enforce the debt in case of default. Without written evidence, the lender cannot bring legal action, even if there was an oral agreement.
通常情況下，貸款無需以書面形式簽訂。但是，法律要求如果貸款金額超過2,000泰銖，必須有借款人簽署的書面證明，以便貸款人在發生違約時能夠提起訴訟來強制執行債務。如果沒有書面證據，即使有口頭協議，貸款人也無法提起法律訴訟。
However, if the agreement or discussion takes place through electronic systems or online platforms, such as a loan request via Facebook or LINE, and the messages clearly indicate all necessary information—including the borrower’s identity, the loan amount, the repayment date, and an attached proof of transfer (bank slip) showing the exact date and time of the transfer—this will be sufficient to constitute legal evidence of a loan. Under the law, the Facebook account name or other online account name can be considered the borrower’s identity. This is in accordance with the Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544 (2001).
然而，如果協議或討論是透過電子系統或線上平台進行的，例如透過 Facebook 或 LINE 提出貸款申請，並且資訊清楚地表明所有必要的資訊——包括借款人的身份、貸款金額、還款日期，以及顯示轉帳確切日期和時間的附帶轉帳證明（銀行單據）。—這足以構成貸款的合法證據。根據法律規定，Facebook 帳戶名或其他線上帳戶名可視為借款人的身分。這符合佛曆2544年(2001)《電子交易法》的規定。
Evidence That the Lender Must Prepare 貸款人必須準備的證據
To file a lawsuit to recover a loan, even without a written loan agreement, the lender can still proceed if there is sufficient supporting evidence. The key evidence that should be prepared includes:
即使沒有書面貸款協議，只要有足夠的證據，貸款人仍可以提起訴訟追回貸款。主要證據包括：
1. Chat messages documenting the loan request. For example, messages on Facebook, LINE, or other online platforms. The messages should clearly state the borrower, the loan amount, the agreed repayment date, and proof of the transfer. If the sender’s account name is clear, it can be considered the borrower’s signature under the Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544.
記錄要求貸款的聊天訊息，例如Facebook、LINE或其他線上平台上的資訊。資料應清楚註明借款人、貸款金額、約定的還款日期及轉帳證明。若匯款人的帳戶名稱清晰，依佛曆2544年《電子交易法》可視為借款人的簽名
2. The borrower’s online account information. To verify the borrower’s identity and link it to the chat messages.
借款人的線上帳戶資訊。用於驗證借款人身分並將其與聊天資訊關聯。
3. Bank transfer records or banking app receipts. If the name on the online account differs from the bank account owner, the borrower should confirm or provide linking evidence to explain whose bank account it is and how it is connected to the borrower.
銀行轉帳記錄或銀行應用程式收據。如果線上帳戶的姓名與銀行帳戶所有人姓名不同，借款人應確認或提供關聯證據，說明此銀行帳戶的所有者以及此帳戶與借款人之間的關聯。
Limitation Period 時效期限
The statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit to recover a loan is 10 years from the date the loan repayment is due.
提起貸款訴訟的訴訟時效為貸款償還到期日起 10 年。
Examples of Supreme Court Rulings 最高法院裁決判例
1. Supreme Court Ruling No. 6757/2017. The defendant borrowed 595,500 Baht from the plaintiff under an agreement to pay 1% interest per month. The defendant received the full amount but later failed to repay the principal, paying only four interest installments totaling 6,550 Baht. The plaintiff sent a message via Facebook to the defendant stating that the entire amount of 670,000 Baht was forgiven and did not need to be repaid. This electronic communication, under the Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544, Sections 7–9, even without the plaintiff’s handwritten signature, was deemed a valid expression of the intention to release the debt under Civil and Commercial Code Section 340. Consequently, the debt was extinguished, the defendant was not liable, and the plaintiff had no right to sue.
最高法院第6757/2017號裁決。被告向原告借款595,500泰銖，約定每月支付1%的利息。被告已收到全額款項，但隨後未能償還本金，僅支付4期利息，共6,550泰銖。原告透過 Facebook 向被告發送訊息，表示全部 67 萬泰銖的款項已被免除，無需償還。根據佛曆2544年《電子交易法》第 7–9 條，即使沒有原告的手寫簽名，此電子通訊也被視為根據《民商法》第 340 條免除債務意圖的有效表達。因此，債務消滅，被告不承擔責任，原告無權起訴。
2. Supreme Court Ruling No. 8089/2013. The defendant used a Quick Cash ATM card with a personal PIN to withdraw cash, which was treated as the defendant’s signature. The withdrawal and receipt of cash with a slip constituted evidence of a loan from the plaintiff under the Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544, Sections 7–9. Additionally, the defendant submitted documents requesting an extension of repayment, with signatures, which also served as valid evidence of the loan. Therefore, the plaintiff had the right to file a lawsuit.
最高法院第8089/2013號裁決。被告使用一張帶有個人識別碼的Quick Cash ATM卡提取現金，被視為被告的簽名。根據佛曆2544年《電子交易法》第7–9條，憑單據提取和收到現金構成向原告借款的證據。此外，被告提交的申請延期還款的文件、簽名等資料，也構成借款的有效證據，原告有權提起訴訟。
Comments