Abstrak :
This research was motivated by the problem of the Defendant withdrawing the
object used as fiduciary guarantee because the Plaintiff had defaulted in a
multipurpose financing agreement with fiduciary guarantees so that the Plaintiff filed
a lawsuit on the basis of an unlawful act. The purpose of this study is to determine the
act of withdrawing the object of fiduciary guarantee can be categorized as unlawful
acts in Case Number 9/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN. Mnd. Dan knows the legal consequences of
the unlawful action decision against the multipurpose financing agreement in Case
Number 9/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN. Mnd.The method used in this study is normative juridical
with analytical descriptive research specifications. Data is sourced from secondary
data consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The data collection
method is carried out by literature study, and the analysis method uses qualitative
juridical methods.
Based on the results of the analysis, it can be concluded that first, there has been
an illegal act in Case Number 9/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN. Mnd. What is done by the defendant
in the category of violating its own obligations because it does not make a subpoena to
the plaintiff and secondly the legal consequences of the unlawful action judgment
against the multipurpose financing agreement, the object used as fiduciary guarantee
must be returned to the Plaintiff by means of the Defendant receiving installments from
the Plaintiff for the payment of arrears for the next 2 (two) months, the Plaintiff
continues the credit installments as stated in covenant.
Keywords: Multipurpose Financing Agreement, Fiduciary Guarantee, Unlawful
Conduct
|
