Analisis penyelesaian sengketa wanprestasi yang dilakukan oleh bank dalam perjanjian kredit konsumtif (studi putusan MA nomor 16 K/PDT/2023)

Halim, Olivia Lawrencia (2024) Analisis penyelesaian sengketa wanprestasi yang dilakukan oleh bank dalam perjanjian kredit konsumtif (studi putusan MA nomor 16 K/PDT/2023). Bachelor thesis, Universitas Pelita Harapan.

Preview	Text (Title) Title.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (41kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (Abstract) Abstract.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (192kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (ToC) ToC.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (585kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (Chapter1) Chapter1.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB) | Preview
	Text (Chapter2) Chapter2.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (2MB)
	Text (Chapter3) Chapter3.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (768kB)
	Text (Chapter4) Chapter4.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (4MB)
	Text (Chapter5) Chapter5.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (277kB)
Preview	Text (Bibliography) Bibliography.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (592kB) | Preview
	Text (Appendices) Appendices.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB)

Abstract

Perjanjian kredit bank biasanya dibuat dalam bentuk standar oleh bank dan dapat diubah oleh bank secara sepihak, terutama mengenai besaran suku bunga sehingga dalam praktiknya bank mungkin saja melakukan wanprestasi yang dapat merugikan debitur. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pengaturan hukum dan mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa terhadap wanprestasi kreditur dalam perjanjian kredit perbankan, dan untuk mengetahui pertimbangan Majelis Hakim dalam Putusan MA Nomor 16 K/Pdt/2023 mengenai wanprestasi PT. Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero) Tbk, Cabang Kupang. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan mengkaji data-data sekunder berupa bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier, serta Putusan MA Nomor 16 K/Pdt/2023. Jenis pendekatan yang digunakan pada penelitian ini adalah pendekatan peraturan perundang- undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach) yang terdapat dalam Putusan MA Nomor 16 K/ Pdt/2023, dengan analisis data yang bersifat kualitatif. Hasil penelitian yang diperoleh dalam penelitian ini adalah mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa wanprestasi antara nasabah debitur dan pihak bank (kreditur) dalam perjanjian kredit pada Putusan MA Nomor 16K/Pdt/2023 jo. Putusan 248/Pdt.G/2021/PN Kupang telah dilakukan secara internal sesuai Peraturan OJK No. 61/POJK.07/2020, namun tidak mencapai kesepakatan. Para pihak tidak melanjutkan penyelesaiannya melalui LAPS SJK karena tidak terdapat klausul pilihan penyelesaian sengketa tersebut dalam perjanjian kredit, sehingga penyelesaian dilakukan melalui Pengadilan. Pertimbangan Majelis Hakim dalam Putusan MA Nomor 16 K/Pdt/2023 jo. Putusan Nomor 248/Pdt.G/2021/PN Kpg. mengenai wanprestasi yang dilakukan PT. Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero) Tbk, Cabang Kupang dalam Perjanjian Kredit Konsumtif menunjukkan bahwa bank yang melakukan kenaikan suku bunga tanpa pemberitahuan terlebih dahulu kepada nasabah debitur telah melanggar isi perjanjian dan asas kesepakatan serta itikad baik. Meskipun terdapat dissenting opinion dari salah satu Hakim kasasi yang berpendapat bahwa bank memiliki hak untuk melakukan review suku bunga dan bahwa debitur dianggap menyetujui kenaikan suku bunga karena tidak segera mengajukan keberatan, penafsiran tersebut tidak memenuhi ketentuan Pasal 1342 KUH Perdata dan belum mewujudkan keadilan. / Bank credit agreements are usually drafted in standard form by the bank and may be unilaterally amended by the bank, especially regarding the interest rate, so in practice, the bank may commit a breach of contract that could harm the debtor. The purpose of this research is to understand the legal framework and dispute resolution mechanisms for breaches by creditors in banking credit agreements and to examine the considerations of the Panel of Judges in MA Decision Number 16 K/Pdt/2023 regarding the breach of PT. Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero) Tbk, Kupang Branch. The type of research used in this study is normative legal research, which examines secondary data consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, as well as MA Decision Number 16 K/Pdt/2023. The approach used in this research is the statute approach and case approach with qualitative data analysis. The results obtained in this study are the mechanism for resolving disputes over creditor default between debtor customers and the bank (creditor) in credit agreements in MA Decision Number 16K/Pdt/2023 jo. Decision 248/Pdt.G/2021/PN Kupang was carried out internally in accordance with OJK Regulation No. 61/POJK.07/2020, but no agreement was reached. The parties did not continue their resolution through Alternative Dispute Resolution Institutions for the Financial Services Sector because there was no clause for dispute resolution in the credit agreement, so the resolution was carried out through the Court. Considerations of the Panel of Judges in MA Decision Number 16 K/Pdt/2023 jo. Decision Number 248/Pdt.G/2021/PN Kpg. regarding the default by PT. Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero) Tbk, Kupang Branch in the Consumer Credit Agreement show that the bank, which raised interest rates without prior notice to the debtor customers, has violated the agreement and the principle of good faith. Although there was a dissenting opinion from one of the cassation judges who argued that the bank has the right to review interest rates and that the debtor is considered to have consented to the increase in interest rates because they did not immediately object, this interpretation does not meet the provisions of Article 1342 of the Civil Code and has not achieved justice.

Actions (login required)

View Item