ABSTRAK
Skripsi ini membahas mengenai pembuktian sederhana dalam kepailitan, denganstudi kasus permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap PT. Multi Structure. DalamPasal 8 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan danPenundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (UUK-PKPU) telah diatur bahwapermohonan pernyataan pailit harus dikabulkan apabila terdapat fakta ataukeadaan yang terbukti secara sederhana bahwa persyaratan untuk dinyatakan pailitsebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) telah dipenuhi. Penelitian iniberbentuk penelitian yuridis normatif dengan tipologi penelitian deskriptif.Berdasarkan hal tersebut, penulis mengajukan pokok permasalahan, yaitu: 1.Apakah putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat yang menolakpermohonan pernyataan pailit PT. Multi Structure karena perbedaan jumlah utangtelah sesuai dengan Pasal 8 ayat (4) UUK-PKPU?; 2. Bagaimana penerapanprinsip utang dalam putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat yangmenolak permohonan pernyataan pailit PT. Multi Structure ditinjau daripembuktian sederhana? Berdasarkan kasus yang dianalisis, pada akhirnya penulismemperoleh kesimpulan bahwa putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga JakartaPusat yang menolak permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap PT. Multi Structuretidak sesuai dengan UUK-PKPU

---

ABSTRACT
The focus of this thesis is on the summary proof in bankruptcy, with a case studythe petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards of PT. Multi Structure. InLaw Number 37 of 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation forPayment of Debts (UUK-PKPU) in article 8 paragraph 4 has been regulated thatthe petition for declaration of bankruptcy shall be granted if there are facts orcircumstances summarily proving that the conditions for a declaration ofbankruptcy as reffered in article 2 paragraph 1 have been met. This research is anormative juridical with a descriptive tipology. Based on the problems, the writerproposed the main issues, which are: 1. Are whether the decision of the Judges ofthe Central Jakarta Commercial Court who refused the petition for a declaration ofbankruptcy towards PT. Multi Structure because differences in the amount of debtin accordance with article 8 paragraph 4 UUK-PKPU?; 2. How the application ofdebt principle in the decision of the Judges of the Central Jakarta CommercialCourt who refused the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards PT. MultiStructure in terms of summary proof? Eventually, the writer came to theconclusion that the decision of the Judges of the Central Jakarta CommercialCourt who refused the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards PT. MultiStructure has not in accordance with UUK-PKPU