Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Pemenang Lelang Yang Beritikad Baik Atas Gugatan Perlawanan Debitor Pemberi Jaminan Hak Tanggungan Yang Telah Dilelang Oleh Bank (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 3564.K/PDT/2015)
Total View This Week0
Total View This Week0
Institusion
Universitas Sumatera Utara
Author
Pakpahan, Alwine Rosdiana
Subject
Legal Protection
Datestamp
2018-03-16 15:06:37
Abstract :
A loan agreement with mortgage is performed by a bank as the creditor; thus, when a debtor is default in paying the creditor, the creditor possesses the right to execute the mortgage object with his own power after firstly requesting for fiat yustitsia to the head of the district court in the area where the mortgage object lies. The ruling of the Supreme Court No. 3564.K/PDT/2015 in a bidding dispute over the mortgage bidding execution between Bank Danamon as a creditor and Zn as a debtor states that Bank Danamon is pronounced to have violated the legal provisions in the execution of a mortgage belonging to Zn. However, the implementation of execution or the mortgage bidding execution has been carried out in accordance with Article 6 and Article 20 of UUHT (Law on Mortgage) No. 4/1996 and the provisions and procedures of mortgage bidding execution pursuant to the bidding law. The research problems are how the legality and legal force of bidding execution of the mortgage certificate conducted under a creditor?s request who holds a mortgage certificate in a bank loan is, how the legal protection for the mortgage bidding winner with good faith against a complaint filed by a debtor who gave the mortgage is, and how the consideration of cassation appeal judges of the Supreme Court in the complaint filed by a debtor of the mortgage in the ruling of the Supreme Court No.3564.K/PDT/2015. This is a normative legal research done by reviewing the law and regulations i.e. Law No. 10/1998 on Banking and Law No. 4/1996 on Mortgage and Bidding Regulation in this research. This is a descriptive analytical research which describes, explains and analyzes problems and finds answers to solve them. The results of the research show that regarding its legality or legal force, the mortgage bidding execution conducted under the request of the creditor who holds a mortgage certificate in a bank loan is valid and has legal force because it is conducted by the creditor who holds the mortgage certificate, grounded on the prevailing law and regulations i.e. Article 6 of the Law on Mortgage No. 4/1996. As to the legal protection, the right of the mortgage bidding winner with good faith against the complaint filed by the debtor of the mortgage has to be legally protected because he has legally bought the bidding object from the bidding agency that has conducted the mortgage bidding pursuant to the prevailing law and regulations. The consideration of the cassation appeal judges of the Supreme Court for the complaint filed by the debtor of the mortgage in the Ruling of the Supreme Court No. 3564.K/PDT/2015 is that the cassation appeals filed by the plaintiff I named Z and plaintiff II named S do not have clear legal ground, and the mortgage object is acquired by the mortgage bidding winner through the prevailing procedures and legal provisions so that the possession of the mortgage object is valid, has legal force and has to be legally protected.
A loan agreement with mortgage is performed by a bank as the creditor; thus, when a debtor is default in paying the creditor, the creditor possesses the right to execute the mortgage object with his own power after firstly requesting for fiat yustitsia to the head of the district court in the area where the mortgage object lies. The ruling of the Supreme Court No. 3564.K/PDT/2015 in a bidding dispute over the mortgage bidding execution between Bank Danamon as a creditor and Zn as a debtor states that Bank Danamon is pronounced to have violated the legal provisions in the execution of a mortgage belonging to Zn. However, the implementation of execution or the mortgage bidding execution has been carried out in accordance with Article 6 and Article 20 of UUHT (Law on Mortgage) No. 4/1996 and the provisions and procedures of mortgage bidding execution pursuant to the bidding law. The research problems are how the legality and legal force of bidding execution of the mortgage certificate conducted under a creditor?s request who holds a mortgage certificate in a bank loan is, how the legal protection for the mortgage bidding winner with good faith against a complaint filed by a debtor who gave the mortgage is, and how the consideration of cassation appeal judges of the Supreme Court in the complaint filed by a debtor of the mortgage in the ruling of the Supreme Court No.3564.K/PDT/2015. This is a normative legal research done by reviewing the law and regulations i.e. Law No. 10/1998 on Banking and Law No. 4/1996 on Mortgage and Bidding Regulation in this research. This is a descriptive analytical research which describes, explains and analyzes problems and finds answers to solve them. The results of the research show that regarding its legality or legal force, the mortgage bidding execution conducted under the request of the creditor who holds a mortgage certificate in a bank loan is valid and has legal force because it is conducted by the creditor who holds the mortgage certificate, grounded on the prevailing law and regulations i.e. Article 6 of the Law on Mortgage No. 4/1996. As to the legal protection, the right of the mortgage bidding winner with good faith against the complaint filed by the debtor of the mortgage has to be legally protected because he has legally bought the bidding object from the bidding agency that has conducted the mortgage bidding pursuant to the prevailing law and regulations. The consideration of the cassation appeal judges of the Supreme Court for the complaint filed by the debtor of the mortgage in the Ruling of the Supreme Court No. 3564.K/PDT/2015 is that the cassation appeals filed by the plaintiff I named Z and plaintiff II named S do not have clear legal ground, and the mortgage object is acquired by the mortgage bidding winner through the prevailing procedures and legal provisions so that the possession of the mortgage object is valid, has legal force and has to be legally protected.
Download
book
BibTex
Latex, Jabref
cloud_download
Original Resource
url resource Institution
