Deed of Settlement as A Dispute Object based on HIR and Supreme Court Regulation No. 1/2016

Abstract

Introduction to The Problem: It is uncommon for a case that has been decided by a judge and has the legal force to be retained and then brought back to Court by one party for a lawsuit. This kind of case contradicts the principles and applicable law, such as the case that the researcher found in Case No. 22/Pdt.G/2016/PN. Sal. Purpose/Objective Study: This paper intends to discuss the legal problem of the resubmission of the deed of settlement as the object of a breach. Design/Methodology/Approach: This research is doctrinal legal research. The data are secondary data which analyzed qualitatively. Following the approach method used, the study is conducted on norms and principles contained in secondary data, from the primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials Findings: The results of the study show that, first, deed of settlement cannot be an object of default because it has been inkracht. Secondly, Salatiga court judges did not consider the principle of ne bis in idem under Article 10 (1) The Judicial Power Act. The president of judges shall be able to carry out the role or power under Article 119 of the HIR, which is to provide advice to those who wish to file a lawsuit. Paper Type: Research Article.

Proof Power of Authentic Deed Transfer of Land Rights in Legal Perspective of Civil Procedures

“…Based on this analysis, the decision of the Supreme Court number 3591K/Pdt/2018, which states that the agreement deeds of the parties are not legally binding have a clear legal basis. The judge's decision will approach justice if taken through a legal interpretation process (Kusmayanti & Dharmawan, 2020). The judge was of the opinion that the deed had no legal force because of the opposing evidence, which stated that the Defendant in the Reconvention had the right to the disputed land.…”