Tinjauan Hukum Atas Wanprestasi Debitur Dalam Perjanjian Kredit Pada PT. Bank Yudha Bakti Putusan Perkara Nomor 19/Pdt.G/2015/PN PBR

Default is an attitude where a person does not fulfill or neglect carry out its obligations as specified in the agreement. For example, the debtor who committed a default on PT. Bank Yudha Bakti in case decision Number 19 / PDT.G / 2015 / PN PBR, where the debtor is do not carry out its obligations to pay installments on credit loans given creditor. Debtors only fulfill their obligations for 7 months. The problem in this study is how the position of the case on case decisions Number 19 / PDT.G / 2015 / PN PBR and how are the considerations judge in deciding the case related to the default of the debtor in the credit agreement at PT. Yudha Bakti Bank Decision on Case Number 19 / PDT.G / 2015 / PN PBR. The purpose and benefits of this research are to find out the position of the case and consideration of judges related to debtor defaults in credit agreements with PT. Yudha Bakti Bank and this research are expected to be useful for development science and as input for competent parties in law in general. This research is seen from the type of research classified as normative legal research, namely research for review and explore and find answers to what should be of each problem examined, which consists of 3 (three) legal materials, namely primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. Whereas if seen from the nature of this research is descriptive, namely research that explains in clear and detailed sentences about the problems in the Decision Case Number 19 / PDT.G / 2015 / PN PBR. Based on the Research and Discussion Results the author can conclude that the position of case cases Number 19 / PDT.G / 2015 / PN PBR is that the debtor has committing a default which is not carrying out its obligation to pay installment of credit loans at PT. Yudha Bakti Bank. And collateral / credit collateral debtor in the form of Land SHM Number 10676 in the name of Desi Ahmad Yani (wife of the debtor) it turns out that it has not been installed / bound by the Underwriting Rights Certificate, so that the creditor unable to carry out the auction execution guarantee through the auction agency (KPKNL), and the normal process of buying and selling is also not possible because of the debtor (owner) guarantee) its existence is currently unknown. While Judge's consideration in this case is that the plaintiff's claim has been granted but refused to partially, that is, the principal request to be given power to the plaintiff to carry out the procedure for the Underwriting Rights Certificate and obtain a Mortgage Right Certificate on KPKNL