Penyelesaian Sengketa Wanprestasi di Lembaga Keuangan Melalui Pengadilan (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta)
This study aims to determine the dispute settlement default to financing in financial institutions through a court decision, as well as consideration of the judge in giving judgment in default of disputes related to financing at financial institutions that have been proven in Surakarta District Cour...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Published: |
2015.
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Connect to this object online |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This study aims to determine the dispute settlement default to financing in financial institutions through a court decision, as well as consideration of the judge in giving judgment in default of disputes related to financing at financial institutions that have been proven in Surakarta District Court. This research method is a kind of juridical normative legal research. Source of data used is primary data, secondary data, and the data tertiary. Data were collected through three stages, namely literature, documents, and interviews. The data analysis technique used is qualitative data analysis with interactive methods, the data collected will be analyzed through three stages, namely reducing the data, presenting data, and draw conclusions. The results showed that the Plaintiffs have managed to prove evidence of its claim, and therefore the lawsuit in the case was granted in part, states that Defendant I and Defendant II has been in default / broken promise. As for the consideration of the judges in giving judgment concerned a dispute default to financing at financial institutions that have been proven in Court of Surakarta is based on the evidence submitted Plaintiff thus strengthening the lawsuit disputes defaulting on financial institutions, so that Defendant I and Defendant II declared in default because it can not afford to pay the principal repayment of the financing and profit margin as well as other obligations under the contract and guarantees that submitted the second defendant as the guarantor was not valid because the land is collateral in the form of inheritance which is still in dispute on the division. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | https://eprints.ums.ac.id/38771/1/NASKAH%20%20PUBLIKASI.pdf https://eprints.ums.ac.id/38771/3/HALAMAN%20DEPAN.pdf https://eprints.ums.ac.id/38771/5/BAB%20I.pdf https://eprints.ums.ac.id/38771/7/BAB%20II.pdf https://eprints.ums.ac.id/38771/9/BAB%20III.pdf https://eprints.ums.ac.id/38771/10/BAB%20IV.pdf https://eprints.ums.ac.id/38771/13/DAFTAR%20PUSTAKA.pdf https://eprints.ums.ac.id/38771/15/LAMPIRAN.pdf https://eprints.ums.ac.id/38771/17/SURAT%20PERNYATAAN%20PUBLIKASI%20KARYA%20ILMIAH.pdf |