《融资协议》中受托人作为抵押品的法律保护与宪法法院判决第18号/ puuxvii /2019号有关

Hawer Trimaryanto Gultom
{"title":"《融资协议》中受托人作为抵押品的法律保护与宪法法院判决第18号/ puuxvii /2019号有关","authors":"Hawer Trimaryanto Gultom","doi":"10.55809/tora.v7i3.43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The background of this research is that the fiduciary guarantee is a form of legal protection forcreditors as the holder of the fiduciary guarantee in the management agreement regulated inArticle 15 of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee. However, after the issuance ofthe Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 which considers the provisions ofarticle 15 of the fiduciary guarantee Act regarding the executorial power of fiduciary recipientswho will abuse creditors, or in other words the fiduciary guarantee certificate has no legalcertainty. in the power of execution. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze the legalcertainty and protection of the execution of fiduciary guarantees in the agreement regulated bythe Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019. This research is a normativejuridical study but is also supported by empirical data so that it is researched data that comes fromliterature and court decisions. The results show that the legal certainty of the Fiduciary GuaranteeParate in the Financing Agreement is linked to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019, namely that creditor companies can still execute fiduciary objects as long as there areprovisions for default or default in the agreement of the parties as outlined in the deed. agreementand the debtor's willingness to submit the object of guarantee. The form of legal protection forcreditors as holders of fiduciary guarantees is linked to the Constitutional Court Decision Number18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 in a preventive manner, namely by making a financing agreement as outlinedin a deed and containing provisions related to default or default. Meanwhile, repressive legalprotection is that if the debtor does not admit to default, the creditor can file a lawsuit against thecourt, so that the court will determine the condition of the debtor's default. \nKeywords: Legal Protection, Fiduciary Guarantee, Financing Agreement","PeriodicalId":355257,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Hukum to-ra : Hukum Untuk Mengatur dan Melindungi Masyarakat","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP KREDITOR SELAKU PEMEGANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA DALAM PERJANJIAN PEMBIAYAAN DIKAITKAN DENGAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PUU-XVII/2019\",\"authors\":\"Hawer Trimaryanto Gultom\",\"doi\":\"10.55809/tora.v7i3.43\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The background of this research is that the fiduciary guarantee is a form of legal protection forcreditors as the holder of the fiduciary guarantee in the management agreement regulated inArticle 15 of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee. However, after the issuance ofthe Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 which considers the provisions ofarticle 15 of the fiduciary guarantee Act regarding the executorial power of fiduciary recipientswho will abuse creditors, or in other words the fiduciary guarantee certificate has no legalcertainty. in the power of execution. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze the legalcertainty and protection of the execution of fiduciary guarantees in the agreement regulated bythe Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019. This research is a normativejuridical study but is also supported by empirical data so that it is researched data that comes fromliterature and court decisions. The results show that the legal certainty of the Fiduciary GuaranteeParate in the Financing Agreement is linked to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019, namely that creditor companies can still execute fiduciary objects as long as there areprovisions for default or default in the agreement of the parties as outlined in the deed. agreementand the debtor's willingness to submit the object of guarantee. The form of legal protection forcreditors as holders of fiduciary guarantees is linked to the Constitutional Court Decision Number18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 in a preventive manner, namely by making a financing agreement as outlinedin a deed and containing provisions related to default or default. Meanwhile, repressive legalprotection is that if the debtor does not admit to default, the creditor can file a lawsuit against thecourt, so that the court will determine the condition of the debtor's default. \\nKeywords: Legal Protection, Fiduciary Guarantee, Financing Agreement\",\"PeriodicalId\":355257,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Hukum to-ra : Hukum Untuk Mengatur dan Melindungi Masyarakat\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Hukum to-ra : Hukum Untuk Mengatur dan Melindungi Masyarakat\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55809/tora.v7i3.43\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Hukum to-ra : Hukum Untuk Mengatur dan Melindungi Masyarakat","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55809/tora.v7i3.43","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文研究的背景是,信义担保是1999年第42号《信义担保法》第15条规定的管理协议中对信义担保持有人债权人的一种法律保护形式。然而,在宪法法院第18 / PUU-XVII / 2019号判决发布后,该判决考虑了信义担保法第15条关于受托人滥用债权人的执行权的规定,换句话说,信义担保证没有法律确定性。在于执行力。因此,本研究的目的是分析宪法法院第18 / PUU-XVII / 2019号决定规定的协议中履行信义保证的法律确定性和保护。本研究是一项规范性的法律研究,但也有实证数据的支持,因此它的研究数据来自文献和法院判决。结果表明,融资协议中信义保证条款的法律确定性与宪法法院第18 / PUU-XVII / 2019号判决有关,即只要契约中概述的双方协议中有违约或违约的规定,债权人公司仍然可以执行信义对象。(二)协议及债务人提交保证标的的意愿。作为信托担保持有人的债权人的法律保护形式以预防性方式与宪法法院第18 / PUU-XVII / 2019号决定相关联,即签订契约中概述的融资协议,并包含与违约或违约有关的条款。同时,压制性法律保护是,如果债务人不承认违约,债权人可以向法院提起诉讼,由法院确定债务人违约的情况。关键词:法律保护,信义担保,融资协议
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP KREDITOR SELAKU PEMEGANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA DALAM PERJANJIAN PEMBIAYAAN DIKAITKAN DENGAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PUU-XVII/2019
The background of this research is that the fiduciary guarantee is a form of legal protection forcreditors as the holder of the fiduciary guarantee in the management agreement regulated inArticle 15 of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee. However, after the issuance ofthe Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 which considers the provisions ofarticle 15 of the fiduciary guarantee Act regarding the executorial power of fiduciary recipientswho will abuse creditors, or in other words the fiduciary guarantee certificate has no legalcertainty. in the power of execution. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze the legalcertainty and protection of the execution of fiduciary guarantees in the agreement regulated bythe Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019. This research is a normativejuridical study but is also supported by empirical data so that it is researched data that comes fromliterature and court decisions. The results show that the legal certainty of the Fiduciary GuaranteeParate in the Financing Agreement is linked to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019, namely that creditor companies can still execute fiduciary objects as long as there areprovisions for default or default in the agreement of the parties as outlined in the deed. agreementand the debtor's willingness to submit the object of guarantee. The form of legal protection forcreditors as holders of fiduciary guarantees is linked to the Constitutional Court Decision Number18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 in a preventive manner, namely by making a financing agreement as outlinedin a deed and containing provisions related to default or default. Meanwhile, repressive legalprotection is that if the debtor does not admit to default, the creditor can file a lawsuit against thecourt, so that the court will determine the condition of the debtor's default. Keywords: Legal Protection, Fiduciary Guarantee, Financing Agreement
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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