ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI TANGERANG NOMOR 35/PDT.G/2011/PN.TNG TENTANG PUTUSAN VERSTEK SITA JAMINAN DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA AKIBAT WANPRESTASI

Abstract

In this case, there was an agreement to borrow money amounting to Rp.700,000,000 between Mas Suparman and Herry Rumawatin where the agreement was stated in a declaration letter on a Rp.6000 stamp that Mas Suparman was willing to surrender his house if he could not pay his debt, after the due date Mas Suparman broke his promise and ran away. The main problem in this research is how the legal consequences of collateral confiscation in a Verstek decision and what causes default in decision number: 35/PDT.G/2011/PN.TNG which was decided by Verstek. This research is a type of empirical legal research that is descriptive analytical in nature, so that the data collected is analyzed qualitatively. The agreement that led to the confiscation of collateral decided by the Vestek refers to the provisions of Article 1313, Article 1320, Article 1338, Article 1243, Article 1131 of the Civil Code and Article 125 paragraph (1) HIR. The results of the research obtained the conclusion that the legal consequences of bail confiscation in a Verstek decision are the legal consequences in bail confiscation in execution confiscation, whose legal force forces the defendant to comply with the execution of goods under bail confiscation. The cause of default is that the defendant and his family have left the house and have not returned yet, do not know where they live now, and the house is empty yet.