Penyelesaian Sengketa Hak Atas Tanah Yang Dijadikan Sebagai Jaminan Kredit Di Bank (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta No. 171/Pdt/2013/PN.Ska)

The purpose of this study is to describe the process of dispute resolution of credit in the bank, analyze the conclusions of evidence in the land rights disputes used as credit guarantees at the Bank, and analyze the judge's consideration in deciding the land rights dispute cases used as collateral for credit at the Bank. This study includes a type of normative legal research that examines the laws conceived as norms or rules applicable in society. The study was conducted in the Surakarta District Court (PN). Data sources use secondary data in the form of court decisions. Data analysis techniques using qualitative analysis. The results of the research show that: First, The process of settling credit disputes caused by the existence of wanprestasi made by the customer, is: provide reprimand, rescheduling, restructuring, and auction execution of the guarantee; Second, the Panel of Judges in the case No. 171/Pdt/2013/PN.Ska has considered various authentic evidence instruments in the form of documentary evidence and witness evidence, in accordance with Article 164 HIR and it is concluded that: between Plaintiff II and Defendant I there has been a legal relationship of credit agreement, Plaintiff as the debtor is obliged to pay / refund the credit by repaying each month to Defendant I, the Plaintiff has decreased in the business and made changes to the credit agreement regarding the credit period, change of interest rate and monthly installment amount, the Default Plaintiff, the Defendant auctioned the guarantee goods; Third, Judge Consideration in deciding the case No. 171/Pdt/2013/PN.Ska is: the change of loan period upon request from the debtor (the Plaintiff), the change of credit agreement made is not an unlawful act from the Defendant, the exact amount of the indebtedness of the Plaintiff is a default by the debtor then the creditor entitled to terminate the credit before maturity, the auction of guarantee goods by the Defendants is in accordance with the credit agreement and the deed of granting the mortgages agreed upon by the parties, and is not unlawful