ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 1483 K/Pdt 2011 MENGENAI SENGKETA PERTANGGUNG JAWABAN PERJANJIAN KREDIT MENGGUNAKAN SURAT KUASA KHUSUS DIKAITKAN DENGAN KUHPERDATA.

ABSTRACT

Indra Wira wanazwir authorized Azha ri Abdul Munthalib to act as his attorney

according to the Special Power of Attorney as a form of transfer of responibilities in

performing his duty.

There is a condition that in order to propose a credit loan, a written

approval from Indra Wirawanazir’s is required. However, during the execution, the attorney

couldn’t finish the work and neglected the settlement of payment to PT Bank Sumut. The issue

is realted to the responsibility of the attorney under the credit agreement according to the

case verdict Number 1483K/Pdt/2011 using the special power of attorney under the

Indonesian Civil Code and judicial considerations of the Panel of Judges of the Supreme

Court under verdict Number 1483 K/Pdt/2011 which granted the cassation request of

Defendent I and II in accordance to Article 1792 of the Indonesian Civil Code.

The methode used in this Final Assignment is ddescriptive analysis with judicial

normative approach. Using the primary la w data which is the Supreme Court Verdict

Number 1483 K/Pdt/2011, analysed with the prevailing la ws. The technical data collection is

librarian study.

The result of this research identifies that the attorney, Azhari Abdul Munthalib Sinik as

the executor of the authority, neglected his duty, and this performance resulted dagame to the

authorizer, and by la w a la wsuit shall be filled to ask for indemnification. To further

emphasize the damage, the authorizer asked for reparation and indemnification through

court proceedings. There is a missinterpretation on Article 1792 of the Indonesian Civil Code

by the District Court of Medan and the Higher Court of Medan, that the action performed by

the authorizer and all the rights and duties arising from the authorizer’s

action is the

responsibility of the authorizer himself. The project funded by the credit facility from PT

Bank Sumut caused legal consequences for the Plaintiff and Defendant III to take

resposibility to return and setlle the said credit facility