查看文章

The auction winner as a legitimate buyer is often unable to retrieve the auction object that has been purchased because the object under the the previous owner. This led to the auction winner filing an execution lawsuit to the Court of Appeal. However, thereis rarely a third party that fights against the seizure of executions with the intention of stalling. Author conducted a study on The Verdict No. 39/Pdt. Bth/2019/PN. Mjk and 14/Pdt. Bth/2020/PN. Mjk Mojokerto District Court regarding derden verzet related to the seizure of execution No. 5/Eks. HT/2019/PN. Mjk. This study aims to find out the reasons for resistance, know the consideration of judges in rejecting resistance and know the legal protections provided to auction winners for the existence of third-party resistance. The research method used was normative legal research. Based on the research, the author obtained the results according to article 195 paragraph (6) HIR, derden verzet can be filed on the basis of property rights to the confiscated object. However, hakim rejected both resistances with the consideration that contrarians are not true contrarians. Basically, legal protection against the winner of the auction has been given by Vendu Reglement and PMK No. 27/PMK. 06/2016, but the resistance to the emptying execution confiscationdoes notmandate the absence of certainty for the winner of the auction in order to complywith the auction object that has been defended.

Abstrak

Pemenang lelang sebagai pembeli yang sah seringkali tidak dapat menikmati secara langsung objek lelang yang sudah dibeli karena masih dalam penguasaan pemilik sebelumnya. Hal ini menjadi alasan …