Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Gugatan Rekonpensi Dalam Hal Pembayaran Hutang (Studi Perkara Nomor 171/Pdt.G/2017/PN.Pbr)

Putra, Harsel Ade (2019) Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Gugatan Rekonpensi Dalam Hal Pembayaran Hutang (Studi Perkara Nomor 171/Pdt.G/2017/PN.Pbr). Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Preview

Text 141010 375.pdf Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

Claims for compensation in the case of debt payments on case numbers 171 / PDT.G / 2017 / PN.PBR, where the Plaintiff of the conference is Hergustiman filed a lawsuit against Alwi Almalki. The plaintiff of the conference stated in the lawsuit that on Tuesday 23 December 2014 the Defendant came to Plaintiff, with the intention of inviting and asking the Plaintiff as an investor single in clove picking work. Therefore, the Plaintiff and The Defendant entered into and signed the Agreement Number 010-12 / X / 2014 concerning Manpower Funding for Clove Picking Work dated December 23, 2014. Plaintiffs and Defendants based on Agreement Number 010- 12 / X / 2014 concerning Manpower Funding for Clove Picking Work dated December 23, 2014 have agreed to cooperate The author sets the main problem, which is proof Reconstruction Claims in Payment of Debt in Case Number 171 / Pdt.G / 2017 / PN.Pbr and how are the Judges' Legal considerations Against the Convention's Lawsuit in Payment of Debt in Case Number 171 / Pdt.G / 2017 / PN.Pbr. In writing this essay using legal research methods normative namely Research to study and explore and look for answers about what should be from each of the problems studied consisting of 3 (three) primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials and are descriptive, namely research that explains in clear and detailed sentences. Proof of Reconstruction Claims in the Payment of Internal Debt Case Number 171 / Pdt.G / 2017 / PN.Pbr that the plaintiff is in the internal recruitment presenting evidence in court not in accordance with the statement given by the plaintiff's reconciliation in court, and besides that all evidence submitted by the Defendant's reconciliation cannot be denied the truth is by the plaintiff's reconciliation and here it's very clear that Plaintiffs of Reconstruction have defaulted on debt payments and does not fulfill the achievements as claimed by the plaintiff the reconciliation agreed in the clove picking agreement while the Consideration The Law of the Judge stated that the payment of the debt had already been made carried out by the Recruitment and Defendant Plaintiffs in the trial as well acknowledged that there had been a debt payment to the Defendant Reconstruction. However, here Majellis, the Pekanbaru district court judge, was wrong establish legal considerations for cases of default in payment the debt. The panel of judges did not see any evidence of a debt agreement accounts receivable, which includes various conditions agreed upon by both sides. Coupled with the existence of evidence stating that indeed the plaintiff of the reconciliation has defaulted on the matter debt repayment to the Defendant's recruitment, and of course this is very detrimental to the defendant's counterparty because the capital did not go away returned to the defendant's response.

Actions (login required)

View Item