{"title":"TINJAUAN YURIDIS PENGALIHAN BENDA JAMINAN FIDUSIA DENGAN OBJEK BENDA PERSEDIAAN PADA PERJANJIAN KREDIT (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2654 K/PDT/2011)","authors":"Aditya Migi Prematura","doi":"10.20884/1.jih.2019.5.1.110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The problem in this study is that it starts with the execution of coffee beans which are fiduciary collateral objects that belong to PT. Cideng Makmur Pratama held by Deutsche Bank by Bank Rakyat Indonesia. Deutsche Bank filed a resistance to the execution because it felt the seed was his property, Deutsche Bank also filed a PMH lawsuit against BRI through a Jakarta district court and was won by Deutsche Bank, then BRI filed an appeal and won so that Deutsche Bank filed a Cassation and produced a decision No. 2654 K / PDT / 2011. This study aims to analyze whether the judge's legal considerations regarding fiduciary collateral holders of inventory items in decision No. 2654 K / PDT / 2011 is in accordance with the laws and regulations and also to know the legal protection of Deutsche Bank as a creditor against the transfer of collateral objects for fiduciary supplies. This study uses normative juridical research methods, so that in this study the authors analyzed using secondary data sources. From the analysis carried out, it was found that the judge's legal considerations regarding the fiduciary collateral holder in the Decision Number 2654 K/PDT/2011 had not been in accordance with Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees and Law No. 9 of 2006 concerning the Warehouse Receipt System and not in accordance with the petitum submitted by the applicant. Legal protection for Deutsche Bank is in the form of replacement of items that have been sold with the same or equivalent object and if the debtor does not replace the item with an equivalent value, Deutsche Bank has the right to pay from the sale of the collateral. This is based on the provisions of Article 21 paragraph (3) and (4) of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. If the money from the sale is no longer available and there are still inventory items left, the creditor can execute in three ways, namely the executorial title, execution parate, and underhand execution.","PeriodicalId":31701,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Idea Hukum","volume":"12360 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Idea Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jih.2019.5.1.110","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
本研究的问题在于,它从咖啡豆的执行开始,咖啡豆是属于PT. Cideng Makmur Pratama的信托抵押品,由德意志银行由印度尼西亚人民银行持有。德意志银行对执行提出了抵制,因为它认为种子是他的财产,德意志银行还通过雅加达地区法院对BRI提起了PMH诉讼,德意志银行胜诉,然后BRI提起上诉并胜诉,因此德意志银行提出了上诉并产生了2654 K / PDT / 2011号决定。本研究旨在分析2654 K / PDT / 2011号判决书中法官对库存物品的信托抵押物持有人的法律考虑是否符合法律法规,并了解德意志银行作为债权人对信托物品抵押物转让的法律保护。本研究采用规范的法学研究方法,因此在本研究中作者使用二手数据来源进行分析。从所进行的分析中发现,法官在第2654 K/PDT/2011号决定中对信义抵押品持有人的法律考虑不符合1999年第42号法律关于信义担保和2006年第9号法律关于仓单制度,也不符合申请人提交的请愿书。德意志银行的法律保护形式是用相同或等值的物品替换已出售的物品,如果债务人没有以等值的物品替换该物品,德意志银行有权从出售抵押品中付款。这是基于1999年关于信义担保的第42号法律第21条第3款和第4款的规定。如果出售所得的资金不再可用,并且仍有存货,债权人可以通过三种方式执行,即遗嘱执行人、遗嘱执行人和暗中执行。
TINJAUAN YURIDIS PENGALIHAN BENDA JAMINAN FIDUSIA DENGAN OBJEK BENDA PERSEDIAAN PADA PERJANJIAN KREDIT (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2654 K/PDT/2011)
The problem in this study is that it starts with the execution of coffee beans which are fiduciary collateral objects that belong to PT. Cideng Makmur Pratama held by Deutsche Bank by Bank Rakyat Indonesia. Deutsche Bank filed a resistance to the execution because it felt the seed was his property, Deutsche Bank also filed a PMH lawsuit against BRI through a Jakarta district court and was won by Deutsche Bank, then BRI filed an appeal and won so that Deutsche Bank filed a Cassation and produced a decision No. 2654 K / PDT / 2011. This study aims to analyze whether the judge's legal considerations regarding fiduciary collateral holders of inventory items in decision No. 2654 K / PDT / 2011 is in accordance with the laws and regulations and also to know the legal protection of Deutsche Bank as a creditor against the transfer of collateral objects for fiduciary supplies. This study uses normative juridical research methods, so that in this study the authors analyzed using secondary data sources. From the analysis carried out, it was found that the judge's legal considerations regarding the fiduciary collateral holder in the Decision Number 2654 K/PDT/2011 had not been in accordance with Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees and Law No. 9 of 2006 concerning the Warehouse Receipt System and not in accordance with the petitum submitted by the applicant. Legal protection for Deutsche Bank is in the form of replacement of items that have been sold with the same or equivalent object and if the debtor does not replace the item with an equivalent value, Deutsche Bank has the right to pay from the sale of the collateral. This is based on the provisions of Article 21 paragraph (3) and (4) of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. If the money from the sale is no longer available and there are still inventory items left, the creditor can execute in three ways, namely the executorial title, execution parate, and underhand execution.