Alfisyahrin, M. Nur (2023) Analisa Hukum Terhadap Jaminan Hak Tanggungan Milik Pihak Ketiga Yang Dinyatakan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Dalam Perjanjian Kredit Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 185 K/pdt/2022. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text M. Nur Alfisyahrin.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (2MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

In general, the execution of collateral objects can cause disputes because creditors want the right to repay collateral objects while debtors or in this case as third parties are not willing to execute collateral objects for debt repayment from debtors, third parties maintain collateral objects by making legal efforts to court on the grounds of lawsuits against the law committed by debtors and creditors because of the use of collateral rights without permission and without with the knowledge of a third party as the owner of the land, with lawsuit No. 275/PDT. G/2019/PN Pbr, with the implementation of legal remedies from third parties, it certainly has an impact on losses to Creditors who lose power over the object of collateral Rights of dependents. In the thesis entitled "Theoretical Study of the Reasons for Filing a Lawsuit of Resistance by a Third Party in the Delay of Confiscation of the Execution of Collateral in a Credit Agreement", the focus of the study is to find out the Reasons for the Third Party to File a Lawsuit of Resistance in Delaying the Seizure of Execution of Collateral and Legal Protection for Creditors in Good Faith Against Guarantees of Dependent Rights of Third Parties that are canceled by the Court. The method used to answer the focus of research mentioned above is to use normative legal research methods, namely by conducting literature studies. Meanwhile, judging from its nature, this research is descriptive analytical. Based on the results of the study, it is known that the reasons for third parties to file a lawsuit for resistance in delaying the execution of the collateral are: 1) on the basis of property rights to the object of the guarantee to be executed; 2) because of feeling aggrieved; 3) on the basis of other rights, such as right of use, Right to Use, Right of Dependent, and Right of Lease; 4) because they feel that they have never entered into an agreement with the debtor to make their land parcel an object of collateral; 5) because it feels that it has never transferred property rights; 6) and because he feels that the debtor has presumptuously made his plot of land the object of collateral without the knowledge and consent of a third party. Legal protection for the bank as a creditor is written in Article 1131 of the Civil Code for the cancellation of the rights of dependents, namely by transferring the guarantee of the rights of dependents into guarantees in general. Article 1131 explicitly states that "all movable and immovable property belonging to the debtor, whether existing or hereafter, shall be security for the debtor's individual engagements". There are two forms of legal protection that creditors can take for ownership disputes encumbered by Dependent Rights, namely preventive legal protection and repressive legal protection.

Actions (login required)

View Item