Abstrak :
The bank is tasked with accommodating funds from the public and channeling
them back to the community and one of the functions of the bank is as a mediator
that connects parties who have excess money with parties who need money. Banks
channel funds to the public in the form of credit, to anticipate bad credit banks
always promise collateral, one of which is a mortgage. This study aims to analyze
the legal considerations of the panel of judges in determining the elements of tort
and the legal considerations of the panel of judges in granting the claim for
compensation based on tort in Balikpapan District Court Decision Number
76/Pdt.G/2021/PN.BPP.
This study uses a normative juridical approach method with analytical
prescriptive research specifications. The type of data used in this research is
secondary data consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials
conducted by literature study. The data is presented in the form of logical,
systematic, and rational descriptions and then analyzed normatively qualitatively.
Based on the results of research and discussion, the panel of judges expressly
determined that the unlawful act committed by the Defendants was a violation of
propriety. According to the author, in conducting the sale and purchase through
auction, Defendant I violated Article 6 jo Article 20 paragraph 1 of the UUHT as
the seller has fulfilled the criteria of Unlawful Acts, namely contrary to the legal
obligations of the maker/performer, Defendant II in conducting the auction process
did not carry out the auction procedure properly, and Defendant III was contrary
to Article 30 Paragraph 1 letter c of Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997
concerning Land Registration, and Defendant IV as the buyer had good faith in
accordance with the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Indonesia Number 821K/SIP.1974. The panel of judges granted the plaintiff's claim
for immaterial damages for the transfer of ownership of a plot of land and building
certified as Building Rights Title No. 578 of Klandasan Ulu village with an area of
1000m2 because it met the requirements in Article 1365 of the Civil Code as it was
against the law because it violated propriety and requested the Defendants to return
the disputed object to its original state.
Keywords: Auction, Mortgage, Unlawful Acts
|