JURIDICAL REVIEW OF MONEY LENDING AGREEMENTS DECLARED VOID BY LAW

Muhammad Nur Ukasyah
{"title":"JURIDICAL REVIEW OF MONEY LENDING AGREEMENTS DECLARED VOID BY LAW","authors":"Muhammad Nur Ukasyah","doi":"10.58471/jms.v1i02.120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to determine whether the decision of the West Jakarta District Court Judge who decided on the Loan Agreement between Nine AM Ltd. with PT. Bangun Karya Pratama Lestari is null and void in accordance with the law of agreement or not and to find out the juridical implications of the West Jakarta District Court Decision in Case No. 451/Pdt.G/2012/PN.Jkt.Bar regarding the cancellation of the loan agreement. This study uses a normative legal research type using a statute approach and a case approach. The results of this study are 1) The decision of the West Jakarta District Court is in accordance with the law of the agreement that the agreement is null and void. This is because the Loan Agreement has violated the provisions of Article 1320 of the Civil Code, namely the non-fulfillment of the element of a lawful cause and contrary to Article 31 of the Language Law and Article 1339 of the Civil Code which stipulates that an agreement is not only bound to what is expressly agreed. in the agreement, but also bound by propriety, custom, and law. 2) The juridical implication of the decision is that any agreement that is not made in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Language Law will be declared null and void/the agreement is deemed to have never existed and the parties are returned to their original condition. Likewise, any accompanying agreement (accessoir) will also be declared null and void, even though the agreement is made in the presence of an authorized official","PeriodicalId":141276,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Multidisiplin Sahombu","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Multidisiplin Sahombu","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58471/jms.v1i02.120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to determine whether the decision of the West Jakarta District Court Judge who decided on the Loan Agreement between Nine AM Ltd. with PT. Bangun Karya Pratama Lestari is null and void in accordance with the law of agreement or not and to find out the juridical implications of the West Jakarta District Court Decision in Case No. 451/Pdt.G/2012/PN.Jkt.Bar regarding the cancellation of the loan agreement. This study uses a normative legal research type using a statute approach and a case approach. The results of this study are 1) The decision of the West Jakarta District Court is in accordance with the law of the agreement that the agreement is null and void. This is because the Loan Agreement has violated the provisions of Article 1320 of the Civil Code, namely the non-fulfillment of the element of a lawful cause and contrary to Article 31 of the Language Law and Article 1339 of the Civil Code which stipulates that an agreement is not only bound to what is expressly agreed. in the agreement, but also bound by propriety, custom, and law. 2) The juridical implication of the decision is that any agreement that is not made in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Language Law will be declared null and void/the agreement is deemed to have never existed and the parties are returned to their original condition. Likewise, any accompanying agreement (accessoir) will also be declared null and void, even though the agreement is made in the presence of an authorized official
对依法宣告无效的借贷协议进行司法审查
本研究旨在根据协议法确定西雅加达地区法院法官对Nine AM Ltd.与PT. bangan Karya Pratama Lestari之间的贷款协议的判决是否无效,并找出西雅加达地区法院在第451/Pdt.G/2012/PN.Jkt号案件中的判决的法律含义。关于取消贷款协议的律师。本研究采用规范性法律研究类型,采用成文法研究方法和案例研究方法。本研究的结果是:1)西雅加达地方法院的判决是根据该协议的法律,该协议是无效的。这是因为贷款协议违反了《民法典》第1320条的规定,即不履行合法原因的要素,并违反了《语言法》第31条和《民法典》第1339条,其中规定协议不仅受明确约定的约束。在约定中,还要受礼、俗、法的约束。2)该决定的法律含义是,任何不符合《语言法》第31条规定的协议将被宣布为无效/该协议被视为从未存在过,双方将恢复原状。同样,任何附带的协议也将被宣布无效,即使该协议是在授权官员在场的情况下签订的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信