法官在解决执行部分争议时的考虑因素(第 2553 K/Pdt/2016 号 MA 判决案例研究)

Nining Rahmadhani
{"title":"法官在解决执行部分争议时的考虑因素(第 2553 K/Pdt/2016 号 MA 判决案例研究)","authors":"Nining Rahmadhani","doi":"10.52249/ilr.v4i1.326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research aims to examine the judge's considerations in resolving disputes regarding the execution of Supreme Court Decision Number 2553 k/pdt/2016. The research method uses a qualitative approach with a normative juridical research type and library data collection techniques regarding legal sources related to this research, then concluded with deductive analysis. The research results show that the source of law in the judge's consideration refers to statutory regulations, namely Article 6 UUHT which states that executions are carried out without the fiat of the Chief Justice. The decision also took into account the facts presented at the trial and decided that one of the parties had committed an act of breach of contract or breach of contract and that the actions taken by the creditor did not constitute an unlawful act. However, the judge's considerations in this decision did not refer to the general explanation of number 9 UUHT which explains that the execution of mortgage rights is based on the fiat of the Chief Justice. So that the implementation of the UUHT execution still contains confusion and vague diction which results in legal uncertainty.","PeriodicalId":500708,"journal":{"name":"IBLAM Law Review","volume":"416 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"JUDGE'S CONSIDERATIONS IN RESOLVING EXECUTION PARATE DISPUTES (CASE STUDY OF MA DECISION NUMBER 2553 K/Pdt/2016)\",\"authors\":\"Nining Rahmadhani\",\"doi\":\"10.52249/ilr.v4i1.326\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This research aims to examine the judge's considerations in resolving disputes regarding the execution of Supreme Court Decision Number 2553 k/pdt/2016. The research method uses a qualitative approach with a normative juridical research type and library data collection techniques regarding legal sources related to this research, then concluded with deductive analysis. The research results show that the source of law in the judge's consideration refers to statutory regulations, namely Article 6 UUHT which states that executions are carried out without the fiat of the Chief Justice. The decision also took into account the facts presented at the trial and decided that one of the parties had committed an act of breach of contract or breach of contract and that the actions taken by the creditor did not constitute an unlawful act. However, the judge's considerations in this decision did not refer to the general explanation of number 9 UUHT which explains that the execution of mortgage rights is based on the fiat of the Chief Justice. So that the implementation of the UUHT execution still contains confusion and vague diction which results in legal uncertainty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":500708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IBLAM Law Review\",\"volume\":\"416 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IBLAM Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52249/ilr.v4i1.326\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IBLAM Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52249/ilr.v4i1.326","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

本研究旨在探讨法官在解决与执行最高法院第 2553 k/pdt/2016 号判决有关的争议时所考虑的因素。研究方法采用定性研究方法,采用规范法学研究类型和图书馆数据收集技术,收集与本研究相关的法律渊源,然后进行演绎分析。研究结果表明,法官考虑的法律渊源指的是成文法规定,即 UUHT 第 6 条,该条规定执行死刑无需首席大法官的命令。该判决还考虑了审判中陈述的事实,判定一方当事人实施了违约或毁约行为,债权人采取的行动不构成违法行为。然而,法官在该判决中的考虑并未提及 UUHT 第 9 号的一般解释,该解释解释了抵押权的执行是基于首席法官的命令。因此,在执行 UUHT 时仍然存在混乱和模糊的措辞,导致法律的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
JUDGE'S CONSIDERATIONS IN RESOLVING EXECUTION PARATE DISPUTES (CASE STUDY OF MA DECISION NUMBER 2553 K/Pdt/2016)
This research aims to examine the judge's considerations in resolving disputes regarding the execution of Supreme Court Decision Number 2553 k/pdt/2016. The research method uses a qualitative approach with a normative juridical research type and library data collection techniques regarding legal sources related to this research, then concluded with deductive analysis. The research results show that the source of law in the judge's consideration refers to statutory regulations, namely Article 6 UUHT which states that executions are carried out without the fiat of the Chief Justice. The decision also took into account the facts presented at the trial and decided that one of the parties had committed an act of breach of contract or breach of contract and that the actions taken by the creditor did not constitute an unlawful act. However, the judge's considerations in this decision did not refer to the general explanation of number 9 UUHT which explains that the execution of mortgage rights is based on the fiat of the Chief Justice. So that the implementation of the UUHT execution still contains confusion and vague diction which results in legal uncertainty.
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