Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT EXECUTION OF MORTGAGE AT THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SURAKARTA Debit and credit, whether it is guaranteed or not guaranteed by a mortgage, if a debtor violates and agreement, the execution is conducted through a civil accusation according to the prevailing Civil Procedural Code. Indeed, there are many alternatives of execution of security object when the debtor violates the agreement, today, when a debtor violates the agreement. This research has the objective of finding out the role of the court of first instance in the execution of Mortgage at the Court of First Instance of Surakarta and finding out the obstacles and the efforts to overcome them. This research uses the juridical-empirical method of approach, meaning that the approach is used ti find out the matters influencing on the process of how the law works in the execution of mortgage. Meanwhile, the research specification uses the descriptive-analytical research, describing the prevailing law and order in connection with legal theories and the practices of positive law related to the problems. Based on the research, some outcomes are obtained that, as long as the involvement of the judge is not requested by the party believing that he/she/it is harmed, the judge is unable to intervene in resolving and deciding the case. Execution is a realization of obligation of the party loses In the verdict, in order to fulfill the agreement included in the verdict having the permanent legal force. The procedure of the execution of mortgage in the court of first instance undergoes several stages; among them are the request of execution found in the Court of First Instance of Surakarta, among them are, the technical-juridical obstacles and non-technical obstacles. This can happen because, in reality, the conduction of execution does not meet many obstacles, thus, sometimes the Head of the Court should step in to smooth the execution. In order to avoid the occurrence of the execution of Mortgage and to minimize the execution of Mortgage, it would be better if the creditor should be more careful and selective in providing the credit to the debtor by selecting the criteria of debtor prospect. Keyword : execution in the court of first instance, mortgage ABSTRAK “Eksekusi Hak Tanggungan di Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta” Utang piutang yang dijamin maupun tidak dijamin dengan hak tanggungan, jika debitor cidera janji eksekusi dilakukan melalui gugatan perdata menurut Hukum Acara Perdata yang berlaku. Memang saat ini ada banyak alternatif tentang eksekusi (pelaksanaan) terhadap obyek jaminan manakala debitor wanprestasi. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui peran pengadilan negeri dalam eksekusi hak tanggungan di Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta, dan mengetahui hambatan-hambatan serta upaya mengatasinya. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode pendekatan yuridis empiris, artinya pendekatan itu dipergunakan untuk mengetahui hal – hal yang mempengaruhi proses bekerjanya hukum dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi hak tanggungan, sedangkan spesifikasi penelitian menggunakan deskriptif analitis, yaitu menggambarkan peraturan perundang – undangan yang berlaku dikaitkan dengan teori – teori hukum dan praktek pelaksanaan hukum positif yang menyangkut permasalahan tersebut. Berdasarkan penelitian diperoleh hasil bahwa dalam suatu perkara perdata, selama keterlibatan hakim tidak dimintakan oleh pihak yang merasa dirugikan, hakim tidak dapat turut campur menangani dan memutuskan perkaranya. Eksekusi merupakan realisasi kewajiban pihak yang dikalahkan dalam putusan hakim, untuk memenuhi prestasi yang tercantum dalam putusan hakim yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap. Prosedur eksekusi hak tanggungan di pengadilan negeri melalui beberapa tahap diantaranya permohonan eksekusi, pemberian aanmaning, pelaksanaan sita eksekusi dan penetapan lelang eksekusi. Hambatan dalam eksekusi hak tanggungan di Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta, diantaranya yaitu hambatan yang bersifat teknis yuridis dan non teknis. Hal ini terjadi karena dalam prakteknya pelaksanaan eksekusi jarang menemui banyak kendala, sehingga kadang Ketua Pengadilan Negeri harus turun tangan untuk memperlancar eksekusi. Untuk menghindari jangan sampai terjadi eksekusi hak tanggungan dan untuk meminimalisir adanya eksekusi Hak Tanggungan, kreditor ada baiknya lebih teliti dan hati-hati serta selektif dalam memberikan kreditnya pada debitor dengan memilih kriteria calon debitor. Kata Kunci : Eksekusi di Pengadilan Negeri, Hak Tanggungan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".