Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai penjaminan atas obyek berupa perjanjian lisensi hak cipta. Pada skripsi ini akan dibahas mengenai tiga hal. Pertama, pembahasan mengenai tinjauan perjanjian lisensi hak cipta sebagai obyek jaminan dari perspektif hukum jaminan yang berlaku di Indonesia. Kedua, pembahasan mengenai jenis jaminan yang paling tepat dalam penjaminan perjanjian lisensi hak cipta berdasarkan pengaturan tentang lembaga-lembaga jaminan di Indonesia. Ketiga, membahas mengenai praktek pemberian jaminan atas perjanjian lisensi hak cipta di negara Jerman, kemudian membandingkannya dengan ketentuan yang ada di Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, dimana data penelitian ini sebagian besar berasal dari studi kepustakaan uang diperoleh serta beberapa wawancara dengan beberapa narasumber. Hasil dari penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa perjanjian lisensi hak cipta merupakan suatu hak kebendaan dimana di dalam perjanjian tersebut terdapat hak tagih yang dapat digolongkan sebagai piutang atas nama, yang termasuk dalam klasifikasi benda bergerak tidak berwujud yang dapat dijadikan obyek jaminan. Maka dengan adanya klasifikasi benda bergerak tidak berwujud atas piutang dalam perjanjian lisensi hak cipta, maka lembaga penjaminan yang paling tepat ialah gadai dan fidusia Masing-masing lembaga jaminan memiliki ciri dan karakteristik yang berbeda-beda yang dapat disesuaikan baik untuk kebutuhan debitur maupun kreditur. Perbandingan dengan negara Jerman, dengan penjaminan gadai dan fidusia adalah pledge dan assignment.

---

This research is concerning the securities over copyright license agreement. This thesis mainly focusing about three problems. Firstly, the object of the securities also with the characteristic relating to the Law of Property. Secondly, explaining about which form of securities that suites the best for copyright license agreement regarding the securities law in Indonesia. Thirdly, comparing securities over license agreement in Indonesia with Germany. This research is a doctrinal research, which some of the data are based on the related literatures.

The result regarding the research stipulate that claim in the copyright license agreement is qualified as the form of intangible movable goods according to Law of Property in Indonesia. According to the practical of this transaction, securities over claim in license agreement applied in form of pledge and fiduciary. Each security has its own character that applicable according to debtor and creditor’s need. Comparing to Germany, pledge and assignment is basically nearly the same as in Indonesia."

"[Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menganalisa apakah penanggung utang dapat dimohonkan pailit oleh kreditur dengan berdasarkan pada utang-utang debitur utama pada saat terjadi wanprestasi serta prosedur pengajuanpermohonan pailit apabila penanggung utang dapat dipailitkan oleh kreditur berdasarkan pada utang debitur utama yang wanprestasi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitan hukum yuridis normatif, dengan cara menganalisa norma-norma hukum yang berlaku dalam peraturan perundang-undangan dibidang kepailitan. Bahwa penanggung utang dapat diajukan pailit oleh kreditur dengan didasarkan pada sisa utang yang belum dibayarkan oleh debitur utama, dan pengajuan pailit tersebut dilakukan dengan cara terlebih dahulu mempailitkandebitur utama. sisa utang yang belum terbayarkan setelah dilakukan pemberesan utang debitur utama merupakan utang yang masih harus ditanggung dan menjadi kewajiban bagi penanggung untuk melunasinya. Bahwa setelah dilakukan penelitian lebih lanjut dapat disimpulkan bahwa penanggung utang dapat dipailitkan oleh kreditur dengan didasarkan pada sisa utang debitur utama berdasarkan perjanjian pokok. Hal mana menunjukkan bahwa kewajiban pembayaran sisa utang tersebut berpindah pada penanggung dengan segala akibat hukumnya. Permohonan pailit terhadap penanggung.

---

The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor. The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the

bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is

responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior

filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor.;The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the

bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is

responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior

filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor., The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able

to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default

debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the

bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The

legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by

analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector.

The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on

outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are

filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is

responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor.

After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to

be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor.

Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all

law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior

filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil

code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the

procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the

specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor.]"

"Hak tanggungan merupakan salah satu bentuk jaminan yang sering ditemui di Indonesia, sebagai suatu jaminan kebendaan yang bersifat tambahan atas perjanjian pokok yang mengikatnya dengan tujuan untuk memastikan pelunasan utang debitur. Jaminan khusus ini diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 1996, dengan objek utama berupa tanah. Kasus yang dibahas pada penelitian ini mengacu pada Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Samarinda Nomor 247/PDT/2024/PT SMR, dengan pembahasan terkait keabsahan Akta Jual Beli atas tanah dan bangunan milik debitur, yang dilakukan berdasarkan kuasa menjual sebagai bentuk eksekusi pelunasan utang debitur, namun tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan yang ada dan kesepakatan yang telah diperjanjikan, yaitu berdasarkan jual beli dengan kuasa menjual dan pemilik tanah yang juga berkedudukan selaku debitur tidak menyetujui penjualan tanah miliknya tersebut. Selain itu juga membahas mengenai peran dan tanggung jawab PPAT dalam pembuatan dokumen penjaminan, kuasa menjual, maupun akta jual beli. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini ialah doktrinal dengan pendekatan normatif dan studi kasus yang akan menghasilkan bentuk penelitian preskriptif. Jenis data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder berupa bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Hasil analisis yang menyimpulkan bahwa telah terjadi penyimpangan eksekusi objek hak tanggungan, sebab eksekusi langsung dapat dilakukan jika mendapat persetujuan dari pemilik tanahnya, dalam kasus ini adanya perbuatan terpisah yaitu pengalihan kepemilikan tanah dengan jual beli menggunakan kuasa menjual yang dianggap menjadi dasar debitur melunasi utangnya padahal penerima kuasa dalam melakukan jual beli tidak serta merta dapat menjual tanah milik pemberi kuasa tanpa perintah darinya. Validitas akta jual beli harus memenuhi unsur perjanjian, ketika pemilik benda tidak sepakat untuk menjual tanahnya, oleh sebab itu seharusnya jual beli tersebut tidaklah sah. Kemudian PPAT dalam melakukan perannya harus cermat dan teliti termasuk memberikan solusi hukum, karena apabila ia terbukti menyalahgunakan wewenang maka dapat dituntut untuk bertanggungjawab secara administratif, perdata, maupun pidana.

---

Mortgage is a form of guarantee that is often found in Indonesia, as a material guarantee that is additional to the principal agreement that binds it with the aim of ensuring the repayment of the debtor's debt. This special guarantee is regulated in Law Number 4 of 1996, with the main object being land. The case discussed in this study refers to the Samarinda High Court Decision Number 247/PDT/2024/PT SMR, with a discussion regarding the validity of a Deed of Sale and Purchase whose object is burdened with a mortgage, then executed directly by the creditor because the credit agreement has matured but does not comply with the existing provisions and the agreement that has been agreed upon, namely based on a sale and purchase with the power to sell even though the land owner who also acts as a debtor does not agree to the sale of his land. In addition, it also discusses the role and responsibilities of PPAT in making guarantee documents, power of attorney to sell, and deeds of sale and purchase. The method used in this study is doctrinal with a normative approach and case studies that will produce a form of prescriptive research. The type of data used is secondary data in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results of the analysis concluded that there had been a deviation in the execution of the mortgage object, because direct execution could be carried out if approval was obtained from the land owner. In this case, there is a separate act, namely the transfer of land ownership by means of a sale and purchase using a power of attorney to sell, which is considered to be the basis for the debtor to pay off his debt, even though the recipient of the power of attorney in carrying out the sale and purchase cannot immediately sell the land belonging to the grantor of the power of attorney without his order. The validity of the deed of sale and purchase must fulfill the elements of an agreement, when the owner of the object does not agree to sell his land, therefore the sale and purchase is not valid. Then, the PPAT in carrying out his role must be careful and thorough, including providing legal solutions, because if he is proven to have abused his authority, he can be sued for administrative, civil, or criminal responsibility."

"PT PEGADAIAN (Persero)dalam menjalankan kegiatan usaha berupa penyaluran pinjaman atas dasar hukum gadai yang dalam pelaksanaanya disertai dengan tenggang waktu atau batas waktu. Maksudnya adalah untuk menjaga agar jangan sampai nasabah lalai untuk membayar pinjaman yang telah diberikan. Apabila dalam waktu yang telah ditentukan pinjaman yang diberikan kepada nasabah tidak dilunasi atau diperpanjang, maka barang jaminan nasabah dapat dijual dalam pelelangan oleh PT PEGADAIAN (Persero). Sehubungan dengan hal tersebut, perlu diketahui implikasi hukum apa saja dari pelaksanaan pelelangan barang jaminan nasabah tersebut, dan bagaimana perlindungan hukum baik bagi PT PEGADAIAN (Persero) maupun bagi nasabah.Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan sifat penelitian deskriptif analitis yang bertujuan untuk menggambarkan serta menganalisa data yang diperoleh secara sistematis, faktual, dan akurat mengenai implikasi hukum pelelangan barang jaminan nasabah untuk pelunasan kredit yang diberikan berdasarkan hukum gadai di PT PEGADAIAN (Persero). Untuk itu jenis penelitian yang digunakan analisis data yang dilakukan secara deskritif kualitatif dengan menggunakan metode induktif.Berdasarkan hasil penelitian terhadap pelaksanaan pelelangan, secara umum terdapat dua implikasi yaitu yang pertama bahwa barang jaminan tidak laku dilelang yang pada awalnya oleh PT PEGADAIAN (Persero) dijadikan Barang Lelang Milik Perusahaan (BLP) namun selanjutnya diubah menjadi Barang Jaminan Dalam Proses Lelang. Implikasi Pelelangan yang kedua berupa Barang Jaminan laku dilelang yang terbagi menjadi tiga hal terdiri dari hasil lelang cukup untuk melunasi utang nasabah, hasil lelang tidak cukup untuk melunasi utang nasabah dan hasil lelang yang melebihi dari kewajiban yang dibebankan kepada nasabah.

---

PT PEGADAIAN ( Persero ) in the conduct of business activities in the form of lending on the basis of the pawn law in its implementation is accompanied by a grace period or time limit . The point is to keep the customers not to neglect to pay the loan has been granted. If the predetermined time loans granted to customers not repaid or extended, then the customer collateral may be sold in the auction by PT PEGADAIAN ( Persero ). In connection with this, please know what the legal implications of the implementation of the customer assurance auctions, and how to better legal protection for PT PEGADAIAN ( Persero ) as well as for customers.

The method used in this study is a research method to the nature of normative analytical descriptive study aimed to describe and analyze the data obtained in a systematic, factual, and accurate information on the legal implications auction customer collateral for the repayment of loans granted by pawn law in PT PEGADAIAN ( Persero ). For that kind of research used data analysis is done by using descriptive qualitative inductive method .

Based on the results of a study of the implementation of the tender, in general there are two implications is the first that did not sell the collateral initially auctioned by PT PEGADAIAN ( Persero ) used Auction Items Owned Company (BLP) but later changed to In Process Assurance Goods Auction. The second implication auction guarantee in the form of salable items auctioned were divided into three terms consisting of auction proceeds sufficient to repay customers, the results of the auction are not enough customers to pay off debt and auction proceeds in excess of the liabilities charged to the customer"