Dalam kasus yang diteliti, terdapat gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum dari debitur kepada bank selaku kreditur karena melakukan eksekusi objek hak tanggungan milik debitur melalui pelelangan umum. Dasar gugatan dari debitur karena dalam Addendum Perjanjian Kredit maupun dalam Akta pembebanan Hak Tanggungan, para pihak telah sepakat memilih domisili hukum dalam penyelesaian sengketa yang timbul, yaitu di Kepaniteraan pengadilan Negeri Pacitan. Pengadilan Negeri Pacitan mengabulkan gugatan debitur dengan pertimbangan bahwa perjanjian berlaku sebagai undang-undang bagi pembuatnya Q)acta iun servanda). Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Pacitan dikuatkan oleh Pengadilan Tinggi Surabaya. Selanjutnya Mahkamah Agung membatalkan putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Surabaya dan Pengadilan Negeri Pacitan dengan pertimbangan bahwa proses lelang adalah sah karena telah sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 6 Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 1996, yaitu dengan parate eksekusi. Permasalahan yang diangkat yaitu bagaimana perlindungan hukum terhadap bank dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi objek hak tanggungan ketika terjadikredit macet dan bagaimana analisis pertimbangan Putusan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor: 3 147 WPDTI2DI4 yang membatalkan Putusan pengadilan Tinggi Surabaya Nomor: 56/PDT/2014/PT.SBY jo. Pengadilan Negeri pacitan Nomor:04lPdt.G/2012/PN.Pct. Metode penelitian adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan undang-undang (statute approacfr) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Prosedur pengumpulan bahan hukum ditakukan melalui proses identifikasi dan inventarisasi bahan hukum primer dan sekunder, yang selanjutnya bahan hukum tersebut dilakukan penyeleksian untuk mendapatkan kumpulan bahan-bahan hukum yang relevan untuk penulisan tesis ini, yaitu yang dapatmenjawab rumusan masalah. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa perlindungan hukum terhadap bank dalam melaksanakan eksekusi objek hak tanggungan ketika terjadi kedit macet, berdasarkan UUHT, yaitu dengan penjualan melalui pelelangan umum dan penjualan di bawah tangan. Pertimbangan putusan Nomor 3147 WPDI/2014 sudah tepat karena membenarkan parate eksekusi yang dilakukan pihak bank karena telah sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 6 Undang-Undang Hak Tanggungan.

---

On the studied case, theres a lawsuit on Act against the law, initiated by a debtor versus Bank as the creditor, for executing an Amenability object belongs to the debtor, through a public auction. The legal basis used by the debtor is because inside the Credit Agreement Addendum, as well as whal was written inside the Amenability Deed, each parties has agreed to choose a legal domicile should alegal dispute arise, which is at the Registrar of Pacitan Distic Court. Paciton District Court granl the debtors claim, with a consideration that the agreement applied each parlies as o constitution to those who made it (pacta sun servanda). Pacitan District Courts Ruling, was upheld by Surabaya High Court. Subsequently, Ihe Supreme Court orerturned both Surabaya High Court arul Pacitan Distric Courl verdict, with a consideration that the auction procesr; i,t legal, because it is in accordance with Section 6 of the Amenability Act, which is v)ith parate execution procedure. The issues thats being raised in this study would be how is the bank legal protection in implementing the execution of the amenability righls object when a bad credit occuted, and how is the analysis of the legal considerations in the Supreme Court Ruling Number 3147 K/PDT/211q that overturned Surabaya l{igh Court Ruling Number 56/PDT/2014/PT.SBY jo. Pacitan District Courr Ruling Number 04/Pdt.G/2012/PN.Pct. The study would use juridical nonnative research method, wilh d statute approach, and case approach. The legal materials collecting procedures is using an identification process also a primary and secondary legal materials inventory, which then will be selected to get the relevant legal materials for this thesis, which means, that could answer the issues- The results of the stu, concluded that the bank legal protections in implementing the execution of amenability rights object when a bad credil occurred, based on Amenability Acl, that is by selling through a public auction, and under-sales. The legal considerations in the Supreme Court Ruling Number 3147 K/PDT/2014 are appropriate because it justify the parate executiors procedure that has being done by the bank, because it is in accordance with Section 6 of the Amenahility Act.