...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization >Legal Protection Regarding Debtor Rights with Productive Credit Against Execution of Fiduciary Guarantees by Justice-Based Creditors
【24h】

Legal Protection Regarding Debtor Rights with Productive Credit Against Execution of Fiduciary Guarantees by Justice-Based Creditors

机译:关于生产性债务债务人权利的法律保护,以防止基于司法的债权人执行信托担保

获取原文
           

摘要

Fiduciary guarantee is one of the specific material guarantees that develops in practice. Since the promulgation of the provisions of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees, officially the fiduciary obtains certainty regarding the mastery of moving objects in the hands of the debtor. One certainty regulated by Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Assurance is a matter of execution where creditors can choose the execution model that is considered to be the most beneficial for both parties. One of the rights of the creditor if he considers the debtor to be in breach of promise is to make a direct withdrawal to the debtor of the object of guarantee and if necessary requesting the assistance of the security apparatus is a breakthrough and convenience provided by the provisions of Article 30 of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. This direct withdrawal will certainly be a problem if the object of collateral is used for productive purposes which results in the debtor not being able to run his business because he has lost the object of guarantee in a fiduciary agreement. This study aims to identify, understand and analyze the ratio legis of fiduciary guarantee execution as stipulated in article 30 of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning justice-based Fiduciary Guarantees and the form of regulation of protection of the rights of debtors with productive credit towards the execution of fiduciary guarantees according to the provisions of article 30 of Law No. 42 of 1999 Of Justice-based Fiduciary Guarantees. This study is normative research by carrying out several approaches, namely the legislative approach, case approach, historical approach, and comparative approach. The results of this review reveal that the beginning of the purpose of the Act No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees is in the context of fulfilling capital through an object as a guarantee object, but in its development credit is also intended for satisfying needs or non-productive, so that the treatment between productive credit and productive credit is necessary where productive loans should be provided (stay ) or the opportunity to be able to pay off the debt, even though the distribution limit has ended or in other words the creditor does not directly use his right to execute the object of fiduciary collateral directly as stipulated in article 30 of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees without providing the opportunity for productive debtors to repay their debts.
机译:信托担保是在实践中发展起来的具体物质担保之一。自从颁布1999年第42号法令有关信托担保的规定以来,正式而言,信托人就掌握了掌握在债务人手中的移动物体的确定性。关于信托担保的1999年第42号法律规定的确定性是执行问题,债权人可以选择被认为对双方都最有利的执行模型。如果债权人认为债务人违反承诺,债权人的权利之一就是直接向债务人撤回担保对象,必要时要求担保机构的协助是债权人的突破和便利。关于信托担保的1999年第42号法律第30条的规定。如果抵押物的目的是用于生产目的,那么直接撤出无疑将是一个问题,这将导致债务人无法履行其业务,因为他在信托协议中失去了担保的目的。这项研究旨在确定,理解和分析1999年第42号法律第30条关于基于司法的信托担保的信托立法的执行比例立法,以及对具有生产性信贷的债务人的权利进行保护的监管形式根据《 1999年第42号法律关于基于正义的信托担保》第30条的规定执行信托担保。这项研究是规范研究,它通过几种方法进行研究,即立法方法,案例方法,历史方法和比较方法。审查的结果表明,关于受托担保的1999年第42号法令的目的的开始是通过作为担保对象的客体实现资本,但在其发展信用中也旨在满足需求或非生产性的,因此,即使分配限额已经终止,换句话说,债权人也应在生产性贷款和生产性信贷之间进行处理,以提供生产性贷款(stay)或有能力偿还债务的机会在没有为生产性债务人偿还债务的机会的情况下,并未直接使用其权利直接执行1999年第42号法律(关于信托担保)第30条所规定的信托抵押的目的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号