Abstrak :
At the stage of Delaying Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) there is a peace
(accord) which is the most important stage. Based on practice, there are several
factors that cause the peace to end. If the negligence factor becomes the main
problem, the Creditor will usually submit a request to cancel the peace agreement.
This study aims to determine how the application of Article 170 of Law Number 37
of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations
(UUK-PKPU) and what legal consequences are received by Debtors and Creditors
after the cancellation of the homologation decision on Decision Number 3/Pdt.Sus-
Cancellation of Homologation/2022/PN.Niaga Smg Jo Decision Number
1/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2021/PN.Niaga Smg.
This research uses a normative juridical approach method with analytical
descriptive research specifications. The data source used is secondary data
consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The data collection
method is carried out by literature study, then the data obtained is presented in the
form of narrative text using the data analysis method used, namely the qualitative
normative method.
Based on the research data and discussion, the homologation cancellation
application submitted by the Plaintiffs is in accordance with the provisions of Article
170 UUK-PKPU with the fulfillment of the elements: 1) Creditors have proven that
the Debtor is negligent, 2) The debtor has implemented the contents of the
settlement, and 3) The court has given 30 (thirty) days leeway to the Debtor. Since
the request for annulment of the peace agreement was granted by the Panel of
Judges, the legal consequence is that the Debtor's bankruptcy status is reopened as
stipulated in Article 291 paragraph (2) UUK-PKPU.
Keywords: Cancellation of Peace, Homologation, Application of Law, Legal
Consequences.
|
