Annulment of a Debt Agreement by Operation of Law from the Perspective of Civil Law: An Analysis of District Court Decision Number 17 of 2021

Michellia Michellia; Gunawan Djajaputera

doi:10.63922/ijevss.v5i03.4485

Michellia Michellia Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Tarumanagara, Jakarta
Gunawan Djajaputera Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Tarumanagara, Jakarta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.63922/ijevss.v5i03.4485

Keywords: : debt agreement, null and void by operation of law, agreement, creditor, debtor.

Abstract

A debt agreement constitutes a legal relationship that gives rise to rights and obligations between a creditor and a debtor. The validity of this relationship depends on the fulfillment of the legal requirements of an agreement as stipulated in the Indonesian Civil Code. This study aims to analyze the legal basis for the nullification of debt agreements and the legal protection afforded to creditors and debtors in District Court Decision Number 17 of 2021. This research employs a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The primary legal materials consist of the Indonesian Civil Code and court decisions, while the secondary legal materials are derived from relevant books, journal articles, and legal publications. The legal materials were collected through document analysis and literature review and subsequently analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicate that a debt agreement may be declared null and void by operation of law when it fails to satisfy the objective requirements of a valid agreement, particularly those concerning a specific subject matter and a lawful cause. Such nullity results in the agreement being deemed never to have had binding legal force. Legal protection for the parties is provided by restoring them to their original positions before the agreement was concluded, including the return of money, goods, or collateral that had been transferred. Judicial decisions should clearly determine the consequences of nullification to ensure that the rights of both creditors and debtors are protected fairly.

References

Afifah, S. S., & Mahmudah, S. (2024). Perlindungan Hukum Pada Pemberi Jaminan terhadap Jaminan yang Tidak Didaftarkan Hak Tanggungan. Notarius, 17(3), 2038–2054. https://doi.org/10.14710/interaksi.%25v.%25i.%25p
Aini, N. M., & Rahman, A. (2025). Perjanjian Gentlemen’s Agreement Pinjam Nama (Nominee) Dalam Pembelian Hak Atas Tanah. Private Law, 5(3), 817–827. https://doi.org/10.29303/psz6c688
Avianto, R. Y., & Latifiani, D. (2025). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Kreditur Atas Dibatalkannya Sertifikat Hak Tanggungan Akibat Putusan Pengadilan (Nomor 226/Pdt. G/2022/PN. Skt). Law Research Review Quarterly, 11(2), 685–706. https://doi.org/10.15294/llrq.v11i2.25906
Bua, N. D., Frederik, W. A. P. G., & Setlight, M. M. M. (2025). Kajian hukum atas perjanjian utang piutang terhadap debitur yang meninggal sebelum utang lunas. LEX PRIVATUM, 15(3). https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/index.php/lexprivatum/article/view/61192
Ginting, L. (2025). Pasal 1321 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata Sebagai Dasar Pembatalan Perjanjian Jual Beli Online. Seminar Nasional Hukum, Sosial Dan Ekonomi, 4(1), 205–215. https://jurnal.umsu.ac.id/index.php/sanksi/article/view/25460
Gusriadi, F. A., Sutrisno, B., & Saleh, M. (2023). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Perusahaan Yang Beriktikad Baik Dalam Pengembalian Modal Pada Investor Dalam Perjanjian Investasi:(Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 208/Pdt. G/2021/Pn. Mtr). Commerce Law, 3(2), 382–390. https://doi.org/10.29303/commercelaw.v3i2.3246
Hariz, M. M., & Haq, L. M. H. (2024). Perjanjian Kerjasama Antara Bumdes Arge Sari Dengan Peternak Madu Al-Fath Desa Buwun Sejati Kecamatan Narmada Dalam Memasarkan Produknya. Commerce Law, 4(2), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.29303/commercelaw.v4i2.5271
Hatimah, H., & Wagian, D. (2025). Bedrog Sebagai Dasar Pembatalan Perjanjian. Jurnal Private Law, 5(1), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.29303/prlw.v5i1.5051
Kana, I. P. W. H., Nandari, N. P. S., & others. (2024). Akibat Hukum Perjanjian Nominee Terhadap Hak Kepemilikan Atas Tanah Dalam Paradigma Kebebasan Berkontrak. Vidhisastya: Journal for Legalscholars, 1(4), 269–280. https://journal.undiknas.ac.id/index.php/vidhisastrya/article/view/5841
Kurnaliah, K., & Aminah, A. (2024). Analisis Yuridis Kekuatan Hukum Akta Pengakuan Hutang (Studi Putusan MA No. 04/PDT. G/2017/PN. Btg). Notarius, 17(3), 2283–2298. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v17i3.52313
Lestari, R., & Andriyani, S. (2023). Analisis Yuridis Wanprestasi Dalam Perjanjian Pinjam Meminjam Uang: (Studi Putusan Nomor 10/Pdt. GS/2019/PN. Smr). Private Law, 3(1), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.29303/prlw.v3i1.2203
Lubis, M. A., & Harahap, M. Y. (2023). Perlindungan hukum terhadap kreditur sebagai pemegang hak jaminan dalam perkara debitur wanprestasi. Jurnal Interpretasi Hukum, 4(2), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.22225/juinhum.4.2.7834.337-343
Nirmolo, D. P. (2026). Analisis Keabsahan Perjanjian Jual Beli Dengan Hak Membeli Kembali Dan Implikasi Hukumnya Terhadap Pembatalan Akta Notaris (Studi Putusan Kasasi Nomor 2491 K/Pdt/2025). JURNAL PENELITIAN SERAMBI HUKUM, 19(01), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.59582/sh.v19i01.1417
Paramita, A. R., & Purwoatmodjo, D. (2022). Analysis Legalitas Akta Surat Kuasa Membebankan Hak Tanggungan (SKMHT) Yang Dibuat Dihadapan Notaris dan Pengaruhnya Terhadap Perlindungan Bagi Kreditor. Notarius, 15(2), 803–817. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v15i2.42672
Payuwaha, B. R. (2025). Urgensi Pengaturan Crypto Asset Sebagai Objek Jaminan di Indonesia. Law Research Review Quarterly, 11(2), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.15294/llrq.v11i2.28128
Pertiwi, S. R. A., & Cahyarini, L. L. (2023). Analisis Hukum Jual Beli Tanah Belum Bersertifikat (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 75/Pdt/2016/Pt. Dps). Notarius, 16(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v16i1.37307
Pratiwi, I., Dilaga, H. Z. A., & Subadi, E. J. (2023). Perjanjian Kerjasama Antara Masyarakat Pengelola Wisata Dengan Pemerintah Desa Bonjeruk Kecamatan Jonggat Kabupaten Lombok Tengah. Private Law, 3(2), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.29303/prlw.v3i2.2596
Putro, E. B., & Badriyah, S. M. (2024). Perlindungan Hukum Kreditur Separatis Pemegang Hak Tanggungan Dalam Perkara Kepailitan. Notarius, 17(3), 2207–2222. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v17i3.44840
Soebagio, N. B., & Ratna, E. (2025). Perlindungan Hukum bagi Kreditor atas Pembebanan Jaminan Kredit dalam Jaminan Hak Tanggungan. Notarius, 18(2), 518–534. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v18i2.64661
Sopiani, S., Senda, V. N., Muzzamil, M. F., & Anugrah, D. (2024). Implikasi Hukum Ketidakterpenuhan Syarat Subjektif Dalam Pasal 1320 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata Terhadap Keabsahan Perjanjian. Letterlijk: Jurnal Hukum Perdata, 1(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.25134/letterlijk.v1i2.109
Tuerah, A. M. (2024). Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Dalam Perjanjian Utang Piutang Menurut Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata: Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 676/Pdt. G/2020/PN. Sby. Lex Administratum, 12, 1–12.
Utami, E. R., & Salim, H. S. (2023). Wanprestasi Perjanjian Utang Piutang. Private Law, 3(3), 804–812. https://doi.org/10.29303/prlw.v3i3.3501
Wulandari, N., & Subadi, E. J. (2024). Wanprestasi Perjanjian Kredit Pada Bank Perkreditan Rakyat: Studi Kasus Di Pengadilan Negeri Mataram Putusan Nomor 31/Pdt. GS/2022/PN. Mtr. Private Law, 4(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.29303/prlw.v4i1.3908