ONLINE PUBLIC ACCESS CATALOG
Klik untuk membesarkan
|KAJIAN PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI KOTA MAGELANG NOMOR 37/PDT.G/2013/PN.MGL TERHADAP PENETAPAN HAK GUNA BANGUNAN SEBAGAI JAMINAN KREDIT (Studi di Kantor Pertanahan Kota Magelang)|
|Pengarang:||ANGGRAINI DIYAH SUSANTI|
Credit agreement is always related to binding guarantee, which means that the agreement will be able to reduce the risks that might be emerged if the debtor was having a default (wanprestasi). At present, the government has provided a kind of protection for the creditor or debtor who conducts a credit agreement with guarantee, Fiduciary Guarantee is aimed to movable asset, whereas for immovable asset in form of land is with Collateral Rights. Characteristic of both is the execution implementation is easy and definite if the debtor is defaults (wanprestasi). If the credit agreement is not charged with Fiduciary Guarantee or Collateral Rights, then the defaults (wanprestasi) settlement must be through litigation process at court, as suffered by PT. Armada Finance as creditor and Mr. Supriyono as debtor. The creditor filed a lawsuit to Magelang City District Court with Case Number 37/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Mgl. and Magelang Land Office was positioned as Defendant III. This case has been examined and ruled by Judges without the presence of debtor as the Defendant I and II. One of the rulings was to sentence the Defendant III to handover physically certificate of Right to Build Number 15 South Jurangombo Village to the Plaintiff without any transfer of right.
The objectives of this research are to learn and understand the Magelang City District Court Ruling Number 37/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Mgl.has meet the legal certainty, justice and expediency elements for the parties; to learn what the Magelang City Land Office action as the Defendant III is against the Magelang City District Court Ruling Number 37/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Mgl. has in conformity with the applicable law and regulation; as well as to discover process of the transfer of rights settlement chosen by the Plaintiff and Defendant I based on Magelang City District Court Ruling Number 37/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Mgl. Research method used here was normative empiric legal research with statute and analytic approach. Primary and secondary legal material collection technique was by documentary study, whereas for non legal material was by interviewing the sources. Next, the legal material was analyzed prescriptively.
Result of this research were first, the Magelang District Court ruling Number 37/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Mgl. has met the legal certainty, justice, and expediency elements, and its emphasis was more to the justice element; second the Magelang Land Office action as Defendant III against Magelang District Court Ruling Number 37/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Mgl.has in conformity with applicable law and regulation; third, transfer of right settlement process selected by the Plaintiff and Defendant I was by sell and purchase.
Key Words: Credit Guarantee, Wanprestasi (Default), Civil Court Ruling.
|Pratinjau Google:||Tidak ada|
|Nomor Rak:||340 - 4|