Analisis Hukum terhadap Putusan tentang Perkara Wanprestasi dalam Sengketa Ekonomi Syariah

Settlement of Sharia economic disputes, Sharia banking, and default in the field of Sharia is the absolute authority of the Religious Courts, as explained in Article 49 of Law No. 30 of 2006 on Amendments to Law No. 7 of 1989 on Religious Courts. In resolving disputes, the panel of judges must apply a clear legal basis and use legal reasoning when considering the case to be decided. The case that the authors of this study started with the existence of a Sharia economic case, namely default in a default case between PT Bank Muamalat Indonesia, TBK as the plaintiff with PT Hasta Mulya Putra as the defendant. This problem arises because PT Hasta Mulya Putra has committed a breach of promise in fulfilling its obligation to transfer the name of the financing object. The purpose of this study is to find out and explain the analysis of considerations by judges in deciding cases, as well as to explain related to the judge's consideration process in deciding cases No. 129/Pdt.G/2023/PA.Mn. The type of research conducted is field research using a qualitative approach and empirical legal research. Meanwhile, the data collection technique carried out by the author uses interviews. The analysisused used an inductive method. From this study, it can be concluded that before deciding that someone is in default, the judge looks at the fact. Things that can strengthen the judge's belief in deciding a case that someone has committed an act of default or breach of promise is that the person has neglected his obligations or has not paid off the principal of the financing, the proof can be seen from the evidence in the form of letters submitted by the plaintiff, all of which have been acknowledged or confirmed by the defendant, so there is no need to prove it. The role of legal reasoning is to help judges reach a conclusion that must be rational and supported by rational premises to avoid misleading errors.