PENYELESAIAN PERKARA WANPRESTASI PADA PERJANJIAN HUTANG PIUTANG TANPA SITA JAMINAN

Abstract

This research aims to analyze and determine the resolution of default cases in debt and receivable agreements without confiscation of collateral. This research raises two problem formulations, namely why the settlement of default cases in debt and receivable agreements is carried out without confiscation of collateral and what are the consequences of settling cases in debt and receivable agreements without confiscation the guarantee?This research uses normative research using a conceptual approach, a statutory approach, and a case approach. Based on the research results, it can be concluded that the settlement of the default case in the debt and receivables agreement in Decision Number 146/Pdt.G/2021/PN Bpp was carried out without confiscation of collateral because the confiscation of collateral for the land requested by the plaintiff included the PLTU installation and included State-Owned Enterprises. which cannot be used as collateral confiscation, and refers to the Administrative and Technical Guidelines for General Civil Courts where in point 11 judges do not confiscate collateral for shares, because if they violate it, it will constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics. Then, as a result of the rejection of the confiscation of collateral in the decision, this resulted in the absence of any form of legal certainty and the principle of good faith in an agreement not being fulfilled. There are also suggestions put forward, including: the existence of separate regulations that discuss the practice of implementing collateral confiscation of shares in order to create legal certainty, and it is hoped that the Panel of Judges when making a decision in a case will pay attention to the realization of the form of legal certainty, and also the principles of good faith.