USU-IR Home    USU Library        Feedback

USU Institutional Repository » Master Theses (MT) » Law » MT - Kenotariatan »

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://repository.usu.ac.id/handle/123456789/20776


Title: Tanggung Jawab Penjamin (Avalist) Terhadap Utang Debitur Yang Wanprestasi (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor : 1436.K/Pdt/2001)
Authors: Tarigan, Samanto
Advisors: Yamin, Muhammad
Ginting, Budiman
Bustami, Chairani
Issue Date: 2-Nov-2010
Abstract: Banks as the financial institution, not only serves the payment and the circulation of money, but also as the main business which gives the loan to their clients. In giving the loan, banks always ask the clients to give principal guarantee and additional guarantee, which can be either collateral or surety. Collateral usually takes a long time and costs a lot of money. Therefore, a company which needs a loan from a bank for its capital, usually uses surety or personal guarantee. In this case, there will be an individual or corporate body that will take the responsibility for the paying off the debt if the debtor defaults. Some of the banks want the manager of a certain company who gets the loan to be bound by borgtocht. Not all companies can do this kind of binding, but only the companies which have legal entities. The company which has no legal entity, such as a business firm, and a limited company which has no legal entity can hardly do this borgtocht binding because its founder or manager is only responsible for his own assets. Therefore, a company which has not legal entity, will involve the third party as the guarantor. But it is very seldom for someone (third party) to guarantee other people’s debts. In the borgtocht which is regulated in the Civil Code, the bank (creditor) is not sure if its credit is secure because the debtor may default, because the bank does not know what collateral will be confiscated or auctioned. Therefore, the bank (creditor) usually asks for a mortgage to guarantee the debt. The regulation concerning the mortgage is found in the Code of Commercial Law, about giving aval guarantee in paying the bill of exchange (B/E). The aim of the guarantor in giving the aval as the contract of giving surety, he, of course, will be responsible for the contract; in this case, he will be responsible for thedebt of the defaulting debtor of the limited company which has no legal entity. The example of this case is the debt and credit between BPDSU (Regional Development of North Sumatera Bank) and PT. Twin Jaya Steel, and Faisal Oloan Nasution SH., as the avalist which was in the verdict of the supreme Court of the Republic Indonesia Number 1436 K/Pdt/2001, on January 29, 2004. This research was legal normative, using normative qualitative approach; therfore, it used library research. The Primary and secondary law’s data were obtained from library study,and the results of the research showed that, the avalist was not responsible for the debtor’s (PT.Twin Jaya Steel) debt because PT.Twin Jaya Steel hat not yet become the legal subject because there was no legalization from Menkumham (Minister of Justiceand Human Rights), the arrangement of the aval contract is found in the Code of Commercial Law, Article 130. In the Code of Commercial Law, it is in the provision about the form and the technique of the aval guarantee.The Binding of Both Parties in the aval contract is only based on signatures and the posisition of the execution/foreclosure on the collateral handed out by an avalist cannot be executed throught executory copy about IOU by giving the collateral because it must be done by process by making a claim a common civil case to the District Court.
Abstract (other language): Bank sebagai lembaga keuangan, disamping memberikan jasa dalam lalu lintas pembayaran dan peredaran uang, usaha pokok bisnisnya adalah memberikan pelayanan kredit kepada para nasabahnya. Bank dalam memberikan kredit selalu meminta nasabah debitur untuk menyediakan jaminan pokok dan jaminan tambahan. Dalam jaminan tambahan selain berupa jaminan kebendaan, juga dapat berupa jaminan perorangan. Dalam KUHPerdata, adapun jaminan perorangan ini berupa penjaminan utang atau borgtocht, jaminan perusahaan, perikatan tanggung menanggung dan garansi bank. Namun, jaminan perorangan (borgtocht) yang diatur dalam KUHPerdata, bagi bank (kreditur) merasa piutangnya belum cukup aman apabila debitur wanprestasi, sebab bank tidak dapat mengetahui secara pasti barang-barang apa milik penjamin yang dapat disita dan dijual lelang. Disini tidak jarang bank (kreditur) meminta dan mengikat barang tertentu untuk menjamin utang debitur. Jadi pihak ketiga selain sebagai penjamin utang debitur juga menyerahkan barang tertentu untuk menjamin pelunasan utang debitur apabila wanprestasi. Pemberian jaminan seperti diatas dapat ditemui dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Dagang seperti kasus hutang piutang antara Bank Pembangunan Daerah Sumatera Utara melawan PT.Twin Jaya Steel dan Faisal Oloan Nasution, SH sebagai penjamin (avalist) yang telah diputus oleh Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia dalam Putusan Nomor : 1436.K/Pdt/2001, tanggal 29 Januari 2004. Sebagai penjamin utang dalam perjanjian jaminan seperti tersebut diatas tentu seorang penjamin mempunyai tanggung jawab, dasar hukum pengikatan penjamin dan barang yang diserahkan penjamin (avalist). Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif yang menggunakan pendekatan normatif kualitatif. Oleh karena itu penelitian ini melakukan penelitian kepustakaan. Bahan Hukum Primer dan Bahan Hukum Sekunder diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan, dan hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penjamin (avalist) tidak bertanggung jawab atas utang debitur (PT.Twin Jaya Steel), disebabkan PT.Twin Jaya Steel belum menjadi subjek hukum karena belum mendapat pengesahan dari Menteri Kehakiman sebagai badan hukum. Dasar hukum pengikatan penjamin (avalist) adalah berdasarkan perjanjian yang hanya berupa pernyataan dalam surat wesel yang ditanda tangani penjuamin (avalist). Kekuatan eksekusi/sita jaminan terhadap benda yang diserahkan penjamin (avalist) tidak dapat dieksekusi melalui Grosse Akta Pengakuan Hutang Dengan Pemberian Jaminan karena jaminan tersebut bukan jaminan kebendaan jadi harus dilakukan dengan proses melakukan gugatan perdata biasa ke Pengadilan Negeri.
Keywords: Avalist
Guarantee
Execution
URI: http://repository.usu.ac.id/handle/123456789/20776
Appears in Collections:MT - Kenotariatan

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
Cover.pdfCover464.85 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Abstract.pdfAbstract309.52 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Chapter I.pdfChapter I391.39 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Chapter II.pdfChapter II434.6 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Chapter III-V.pdfChapter III-V444.66 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Reference.pdfReference256.66 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
 

Items in USU-IR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.