Transfer of receivables is a way which is generally conducted by creditors which are encountering a problem, which will later on result in the exchange of creditors upon the claiming right which they own. In practice, transfer of receivables can be conducted through Cessie, however the transfer of receivables through cessie requires a notification to the debtor. In relation to the said requirement, the research questions within this research is regarding how the legal protection of the debtor in a transfer of receivables through cessie which is conducted without a notification to the debtor will be and regarding the legal application applied by the panel of judges within Verdict Number 370/Pdt.G/2014/PN. Mdn in regards to the transfer of receivables which is conducted without a notification to the debtor. The research method conducted is a normative legal research with secondary data which is analyzed qualitatively. The result of research within this research finds that, the legal protection for the debtor in a cessie case which is conducted without a notification to the debtor, Article 613 paragraph (2) of the Civil Code has provided protection by stating that the cessie within the said case will not affect the debtor, so everything that occurs in relation to the cessie cannot be claimed to the debtor as long as the debtor has not receive any notification. Therefore, the debtor shall not be at fault if they still consider that their creditor is still the previous creditor. The legal application applied by the panel of judges within Verdict Number 370/Pdt.G/2014/PN. Mdn states that the transfer of receivables which is done by Defendant II (Bank Danamon) as the previous creditor with Defendant I (Henry Kosasih) as the new creditor, is not valid and does not have any legal binding effect as there has not been any notification to the Plaintiff (PT. Yamika Arbis) as the debtor. In contrary, experts are of opinion that notifications in a cessie case is not