HAEKAL, MUHAMMAD (2022) EFEKTIVITAS SISTEM PEMBUKTIAN SEDERHANA DALAM KEPAILITAN. S1 thesis, UNIVERSITAS SULTAN AGENG TIRTAYASA.
![[img]](https://eprints.untirta.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
COVER.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (1MB) |
|
Text
BAB 1.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (707kB) |
|
Text
BAB 2.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (827kB) |
|
Text
BAB 3.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) |
|
Text
BAB 4.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (688kB) |
|
Text
BAB 5.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (543kB) |
|
Text
DAFTAR PUSTAKA.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (662kB) |
|
Text
LAMPIRAN.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (432kB) |
Abstract
Sistem pembuktian sederhana dalam kepailitan tersirat pada Pasal 2 ayat (1) Jo.Pasal 8 ayat (4) UUK-PKPU, yang arti dan batasannya masih relatif belum jelas sehingga menyebabkan inkonsistensi putusan pailit. Identifikasi masalah di dalam penelitian ini, yaitu:Pertama, Bagaimana sistem pembuktian sederhana dalam kepailitan? Kedua, Bagaimana efektivitas sistem pembuktian sederhana dalam kepailitan? Penelitian yang dilakukan adalah tipe penelitian yuridis normative dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus. Penelitian ini menggunakan data sekunder yang digunakan terdiri dari bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder dan bahan hukum tersier. Hasil penelitian diperoleh simpulan bahwa: Pertama, Sistem pembuktian sederhana dalam Kepailitan merupakan penerapan Pasal 2 ayat (1) Jo. Pasal 8 ayat (4) UUK-PKPU yaitu: Adanya fakta atau keadaan yang terbukti secara sederhana; Debitur mempunyai dua atau lebih Kreditur; Debitur tidak membayar lunas 1 utang yang telah jatuh tempo dan dapat ditagih; Permohonannya diajukan oleh Debitur atau Kreditur. Kedua, Sistem pembuktian sederhana dalam penerapannya tidak efektif dalam artian “tidak efektif relatif”. Hal tersebut berdasarkan parameter penerapan pembuktian sederhana yang tidak konsisten sehingga tidak memenuhi kepastian hukum, kurang sempurnanya pemahaman sistem pembuktian sederhana oleh pengemban hukum dan parameter selanjutnya yaitu dari total putusan pada Tahun 2015 ada 7 permohonan, 2 diterima, 5 ditolak. Tahun 2016 3 permohonan, 3 ditolak, Tahun 2017 1 permohonan, 1 ditolak. Tahun 2019, 2 Permohonan, 1 diterima, 1 ditolak. Tahun 2020, 2 permohonan, 1 diterima, 1 ditolak. Artinya dari total 15 permohonan sepanjang Tahun 2015-2020 hanya 4 Permohonan yang diterima.
| Item Type: | Thesis (S1) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contributors: |
|
|||||||||
| Additional Information: | A simple system of evidence in bankruptcy is implied in Article 2 paragraph (1) Jo.Article 8 paragraph (4) UUK-PKPU, whose meaning and limitations are still relatively unclear, causing inconsistencies in bankruptcy verdicts. Identify the problems in this study, namely: First,What is the simple evidentiary system in bankruptcy? Secondly, What is the effectiveness of a simple evidentiary system in bankruptcy? The research conducted is a normative type of juridical research with a statutory approach and case approach. This study used secondary data used consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. The results of the study concluded that: First, a simple evidentiary system in Bankruptcy is the application of Article 2 paragraph (1) Jo. Article 8 paragraph (4) UUK-PKPU namely: The existence of facts or circumstances that are proven simply; The debtor has two or more Creditors; The debtor does not pay in full 1 maturing and billable debt; The application is submitted by the Debtor or Creditor. Second, a simple evidentiary system in its application is ineffective in the sense of "relative ineffectiveness". It is based on the parameters of the application of simple evidence that is inconsistent so as not to meet legal certainty, a lack of perfect understanding of the simple evidentiary system by the legal and the next parameter that is from the total verdict in 2015 there are 7 applications, 2 received, 5 rejected. In 2016 3 applications, 3 rejected, Year 2017 1 application, 1 rejected. In 2019, 2 Applications, 1 received, 1 rejected. In 2020, 2 applications, 1 received, 1 rejected. This means that out of a total of 15 applications throughout 2015-2020 only 4 Applications were accepted. Keywords: Effectiveness, Simple evidence, Bankruptcy | |||||||||
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Kata Kunci: Efektivitas, Pembuktian Sederhana, Kepailitan | |||||||||
| Subjects: | K Law > K Law (General) | |||||||||
| Divisions: | 01-Fakultas Hukum 01-Fakultas Hukum > 74201-Program Studi Ilmu Hukum |
|||||||||
| Depositing User: | Perpustakaan Pusat | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 27 Jul 2022 09:58 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 27 Jul 2022 09:58 | |||||||||
| URI: | http://eprints.untirta.ac.id/id/eprint/14818 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |