"
ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas mengenai pembuktian sederhana dalam kepailitan, dengan
studi kasus permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap PT. Multi Structure. Dalam
Pasal 8 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan
Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (UUK-PKPU) telah diatur bahwa
permohonan pernyataan pailit harus dikabulkan apabila terdapat fakta atau
keadaan yang terbukti secara sederhana bahwa persyaratan untuk dinyatakan pailit
sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) telah dipenuhi. Penelitian ini
berbentuk penelitian yuridis normatif dengan tipologi penelitian deskriptif.
Berdasarkan hal tersebut, penulis mengajukan pokok permasalahan, yaitu: 1.
Apakah putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat yang menolak
permohonan pernyataan pailit PT. Multi Structure karena perbedaan jumlah utang
telah sesuai dengan Pasal 8 ayat (4) UUK-PKPU?; 2. Bagaimana penerapan
prinsip utang dalam putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat yang
menolak permohonan pernyataan pailit PT. Multi Structure ditinjau dari
pembuktian sederhana? Berdasarkan kasus yang dianalisis, pada akhirnya penulis
memperoleh kesimpulan bahwa putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta
Pusat yang menolak permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap PT. Multi Structure
tidak sesuai dengan UUK-PKPU
ABSTRACTThe focus of this thesis is on the summary proof in bankruptcy, with a case study
the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards of PT. Multi Structure. In
Law Number 37 of 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation for
Payment of Debts (UUK-PKPU) in article 8 paragraph 4 has been regulated that
the petition for declaration of bankruptcy shall be granted if there are facts or
circumstances summarily proving that the conditions for a declaration of
bankruptcy as reffered in article 2 paragraph 1 have been met. This research is a
normative juridical with a descriptive tipology. Based on the problems, the writer
proposed the main issues, which are: 1. Are whether the decision of the Judges of
the Central Jakarta Commercial Court who refused the petition for a declaration of
bankruptcy towards PT. Multi Structure because differences in the amount of debt
in accordance with article 8 paragraph 4 UUK-PKPU?; 2. How the application of
debt principle in the decision of the Judges of the Central Jakarta Commercial
Court who refused the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards PT. Multi
Structure in terms of summary proof? Eventually, the writer came to the
conclusion that the decision of the Judges of the Central Jakarta Commercial
Court who refused the petition for a declaration of bankruptcy towards PT. Multi
Structure has not in accordance with UUK-PKPU"
