Legal Protection for Parties Who Have Good Faith in a Home Ownership Credit Agreement (Case Study of District Court Decision No. 54Pdt.G/2021/PN.Kwg)

One of the problems in the implementation of Home Ownership Credit (KPR) is often encountered, including the transfer of rights to the object of Home Ownership Credit (KPR), namely the house, which is carried out by the debtor to another party before the period of the Home Ownership Credit (KPR) ends or is paid off and without the knowledge of the bank and does not use proper and correct procedures, known to the public as the transfer of rights or take over credit. Credit takeovers are often carried out by debtors through a sale and purchase agreement made by the parties themselves, without a certain standard and only tailored to the needs of the parties without facing an authorized official or known as an underhand sale and purchase agreement. The problem raised in this research is the legal certainty of the implementation of over credit under the hand and the consideration of the judge in decision No. 54/Pdt.G/2021 /PN.Kwg. The purpose of this writing is to find out the legal certainty of the implementation carried out under the hands of a home ownership credit agreement (KPR) and to find out the judge's consideration in decision No. 54/Pdt.G /2021/PN.Kwg. The author uses the Normative Juridical approach method in this research, which means that in analyzing the problem is done by studying legal materials. The results of the author's research are that the Karawang District Court gave legal certainty to Budi Nuryono as a good faith buyer and the panel of judges decided based on article 1238 of the Civil Code stating that the Defendant did not do what was promised which caused default.