[Dalam hal debitor wanprestasi, maka sudah selayaknya kreditor dapat langsungmengeksekusi objek jaminan tersebut melalui lelang. Saat pelaksanaan lelang,siapa saja dapat menjadi peserta lelang, kecuali yang bersangkutan termasukdalam pihak-pihak yang dilarang sebagai peserta lelang, seperti yang tercantumdalam Pasal 49 ayat (1) PMK No. 40/PMK.07/2006 jo Pasal 69 PMK No.93/PMK.06/2010. Penulis menganalisis bagaimana keabsahan lelang yangdimenangkan oleh karyawan kreditor beserta pertimbangan Hakim dalam putusanNomor 1368K/Pdt/2011. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridisnormatif yaitu menelaah norma-norma hukum tertulis yang berkaitan denganpermasalahan yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini. Dalam penelitian ini tidakditemukan peraturan yang secara khusus mengatur mengenai boleh atau tidaknyakaryawan kreditor menjadi peserta lelang, yang berakibat munculnya dua putusanyang berbeda mengenai hal tersebut, yaitu putusan dalam tingkat pertama denganputusan dalam tingkat banding dan kasasi. Namun, setelah Penulis menelaah lebihdalam mengenai hal tersebut, tidak ada satu ketentuan yang melarang karyawankreditor menjadi peserta bahkan Pembeli dalam lelang. Karyawan tersebut dapatmenjadi peserta bahkan menjadi pembeli dalam lelang selama yang bersangkutantelah memenuhi seluruh kewajibannya. Dengan demikian, lelang yang telahdilaksanakan pada tanggal 18 September 2007 yang memenangkan Tergugat IVselaku karyawan kreditor adalah sah dan tidak melanggar hukum
In case when the debtor defaults, the creditor can directly execute the object ofmortgage right. Currently the auction, anyone can become and join as aparticipant in the auction, except the concerned parties including the banned as aparticipant of the auction, as stated in Article 49 paragraph (1) PMK No. 40/PMK.07/2006 in conjunction with Article 69 PMK No. 93/PMK.06/2010. Theauthor analyzes how the validity of the auction, which was won by the creditor’semployees and how about the Judge’s consideration when made a decision No.1368K/Pdt/2011. The method used is a normative juridical norms which examinesthe written law relating to the issues raised in this study. In this research, there’sno regulations specifically regarding whether or not the creditor’s employeebecome a participant in the auction, which resulted two different decisions fromtwo different courts, there are Jakarta Timur’s district court with DKI Jakarta’shigh court and the supreme court. However, after the author examines moredeeply about that problem, there is no spesific regulation about the creditor’semployee banned as a participant in auction. As long as that employee canfulfilling all of their obligations they can become a participant or the winner of theauction. Therefore, the auction that was held on September 18, 2007 who won bythe fourth defendant as a creditor’s employee is still valid because he doesn’tviolates the law., In case when the debtor defaults, the creditor can directly execute the object ofmortgage right. Currently the auction, anyone can become and join as aparticipant in the auction, except the concerned parties including the banned as aparticipant of the auction, as stated in Article 49 paragraph (1) PMK No. 40/PMK.07/2006 in conjunction with Article 69 PMK No. 93/PMK.06/2010. Theauthor analyzes how the validity of the auction, which was won by the creditor’semployees and how about the Judge’s consideration when made a decision No.1368K/Pdt/2011. The method used is a normative juridical norms which examinesthe written law relating to the issues raised in this study. In this research, there’sno regulations specifically regarding whether or not the creditor’s employeebecome a participant in the auction, which resulted two different decisions fromtwo different courts, there are Jakarta Timur’s district court with DKI Jakarta’shigh court and the supreme court. However, after the author examines moredeeply about that problem, there is no spesific regulation about the creditor’semployee banned as a participant in auction. As long as that employee canfulfilling all of their obligations they can become a participant or the winner of theauction. Therefore, the auction that was held on September 18, 2007 who won bythe fourth defendant as a creditor’s employee is still valid because he doesn’tviolates the law.]