Jurnal MINUTA

Journal Information
ISSN / EISSN : 2656-1352 / 2685-3078
Current Publisher: University of Surabaya (10.24123)
Total articles ≅ 5
Filter:

Articles in this journal

Evi Retno Wati
Published: 24 April 2019
Jurnal MINUTA, Volume 1, pp 14-19; doi:10.24123/jmta.v1i1.1838

Abstract:
Generally collateral is divided into two, namely personal guarantee (persoonlijke zekerheid) and corporeal guarantee (zakerlijke zekerheid). On Personal collateral, what given by debtor was not an object but a statement made by the third party who has no interest at all both toward debtor or creditor. In the case that was reviewed in this research to wit The supreme court of Republic of Indonesia decree No. 2960 K/Pdt/2010 PT. Pertamina Dana Ventura (first named PT. Pertamina Saving & Investment), as a creditor filed a confiscation guarantee claim toward Kairudin Nur who is the guarantor of the debt of PT. Goro Bata Sakti (in bankruptcy) as a debtor. Guarantor in Indonesian Civil Code (later stated as KUHPer) is given a privilege which is stated in article 1831 KUHPer which given right to the guarantor to reject payment to creditor before the creditor’s property confiscated first and sold in order to pay the debts. If after the debtor’s property confiscated and sold are not enough to pay the debts, then in this case the guarantor is responsible for fulfilling the debts toward creditor. In The supreme court of Republic of Indonesia decree No. 2960 K/Pdt/2010, the guarantor right as ruled in KUHPer is violated. Therefore the law protection that can be given to the guarantor is the guarantor is given the right to accelerate the management and settlement toward debtor’s assets which were under curator supervision.
Diana Hugeng
Published: 24 April 2019
Jurnal MINUTA, Volume 1, pp 28-34; doi:10.24123/jmta.v1i1.1841

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Ardani Retno Nindito
Published: 24 April 2019
Jurnal MINUTA, Volume 1, pp 35-45; doi:10.24123/jmta.v1i1.1842

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Marselia Yolanda Mantara
Published: 24 April 2019
Jurnal MINUTA, Volume 1, pp 1-13; doi:10.24123/jmta.v1i1.1837

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Arif Hidayat
Published: 24 April 2019
Jurnal MINUTA, Volume 1, pp 20-27; doi:10.24123/jmta.v1i1.1840

Abstract:
Notary in making an authentic deed must be able to account for the deed if it turns out that in the future problems arise from the authentic deed both in terms of criminal law, civil law or State administration. The problems arising from the deed made by the Notary need to be questioned whether it is the result of an error from the Notary or the error of the viewer who does not provide information in accordance with the actual reality to the Notary. Such negligence or error can occur because the Notary in question is lacking or does not understand the construction or legal actions desired by the viewer so that the deed made is contrary to the provisions of the law. Such negligence or error can also be deliberately carried out by the concerned Notary. This study focuses on Law Number 30 Year 2004 as amended by Law Number 2 of 2014 concerning Notary Position wherein this study discusses the Notary who is unable to carry out his position so he has the right to submit written leave request and at the same time accompanied by the appointment of a substitute notary. After a while, a lawsuit from a party that feels aggrieved results from the deed made by Si X as a Substitute Notary. The results of this study concluded that a notary who leaves as a substituted notary has responsibility for the deed made by his successor notary even though he is on leave from his position where the responsibility is in the form of civil liability, if the substitute notary commits an error within the scope of authority given by a notary to a substitute notary. So in that case the notary is also liable for losses suffered by the parties due to the deed made by the substitute notary. Because the notary who is replaced is the owner of the office, if the notary of origin will file leave then he will appoint an employee from his own office as a substitute notary. Criminal responsibility, in the case of a criminal offense, a notary who is replaced is not responsible, for example in the case of tax evasion. Criminal liability can only be imposed on a substitute notary if he makes a mistake outside his authority as a substitute notary. Then the notary whose leave cannot be held accountable. The substitute notary is also entitled to get the same protection and legal guarantees because every citizen has the same rights before the law.
Back to Top Top