ABSTRAK
Perjanjian dibuat dengan maksud untuk mencegah atau meminimalisir permasalahan yang mungkin akan terjadi. Suatu perjanjian pada dasarnya haruslah dilandasi dengan win-win attitude, dan bertujuan untuk melindungi kepentingan masing-masing pihak serta dapat memberikan keuntungan secara timbal balik. Perjanjian dapat dibuat dalam bentuk bawah tangan ataupun dalam bentuk akta otentik. Syarat sahnya perjanjian yang diatur dalam KUH Perdata digolongkan dalam unsur subyektif dan unsur obyektif. Tidak terpenuhinya unsur subyektif mengakibatkan perjanjian dapat dibatalkan, sedangkan tidak terpenuhinya unsur obyektif mengakibatkan perjanjian batal demi hukum. Pembatalan perjanjian dapat pula terjadi walaupun telah memenuhi syarat-syarat subyektif dan obyektif, jika para pihak wanprestasi, sepanjang pembatalan perjanjian diajukan oleh para pihak dalam perjanjian ke hadapan pengadilan yang berwenang. Dari beberapa kasus yang terjadi sehubungan dengan pembatalan perjanjian, dapatlah diambil contoh Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia tanggal 16 November 2001 Nomor 3248.KIPdt/2000. Putusan inilah yang dijadikan analisis yuridis didalam penelitian ini dengan pokok permasalahan: 1. Bagaimana perlindungan hukum bagi pihak kreditur akibat dibatalkannya perjanjian kredit oleh Majelis Hakim? 2. Apakah Putusan Majelis Hakim Agung yang membatalkan akta tersebut telah menerapkan hukum secara tepat? Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum dengan pendekatan normatif, mempergunakan data sekunder yang diperoleh dari studi kepustakaan, dan penelitian bersifat deskriptif, karena ditujukan untuk memberikan data yang seteliti mungkin tentang sifat-sifat hubungan hukum, keadaan atau gejala-gejala tertentu dalam melakukan suatu perjanjian. Dalam penelitian ini, dianalisa suatu kasus mengenai pembatalan perjanjian yang disebabkan para pihaknya melakukan wanprestasi, namun pembatalan perjanjian tersebut tidak dimohonkan oleh para pihak melainkan diputus berdasarkan putusan Majelis Hakim yang dilandasi petitum subsidair (ex aequo et bona). Berdasarkan kasus tersebut, dikaitkan dengan teori yang ada, dapat disimpulkan bahwa Putusan Majelis Hakim mengenai pembatalan perjanjian menjadikan posisi kreditur lemah dan menimbulkan kerugian bagi kreditur. Hakim dalam memeriksa dan memutus perkara hendaknya cermat dan teliti, sehingga putusan yang dihasilkan dapat memenuhi rasa keadilan serta memberikan kepastian hukum.

---

ABSTRAK

An agreement made with a purpose to prevent and minimize any possible problem in the future. An agreement has to be based on a win-win attitude, and performs to protect every interested party so they could deliver many advantages one another as an interaction. Agreements could be done in two different forms, underhanded and authentic document. To fulfill the legal terms of the agreement, Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata has required subjective substances and objective substances. The unfulfilled of subjective substances would cause the agreement abrogated, while the unfulfilled of objective substances would cause revocation by law. Despite it has fulfilled both substances, the abrogation of an agreement can also happen if the parties disobey the provision contained in the agreement, as long as the abrogation is propose by the party to the court that have the jurisdiction and authority to abrogate the agreement. From some cases happens concerning about the agreements' abrogation, we can take an example The Sentence of The Supreme Court Republic of Indonesia dated November 16th, 2001 No. 3248.K/Pdt/2000. It is the subject matter to the juridical analysis in this research, with main question: 1. How is the juridical protection against the creditor as the consequences of abrogation of the credit agreement by the Court of Justice? 2. Does this sentence in which contains the abrogation of agreement have applied law correctly? This research has a normative approach using a secondary data obtained by literature study, and has a descriptive character, because it aims to give a specific data about characteristic of law-connected relations, conditions or any certain indications in making an agreement. In this research, there is a case analysis about the abrogation of an agreement caused by violation of the agreement by the parties, however, the abrogation itself didn't requested by the parties and has sentenced by the Court of Justice based on the subsidiary petition (ex aequo et bono). Based on that case connecting to the existing theory, we can conclude that the abrogation of the agreement by the Court of Justice has weakened the position of the creditor and bring about loss to them. In investigating and deciding a case, the judge has to examine in detail and very careful and accurate, so it will produce a fair and definite decision.