Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages: 1200-1208  
J. Environ. Treat. Tech.  
ISSN: 2309-1185  
Journal web link: http://www.jett.dormaj.com  
https://doi.org/10.47277/JETT/8(3)1208  
The Certificate of Building Use of Rights (Shgb)  
that has been out Duration of Ownership, with  
Execution of Sita Object Guarantee to Land  
Heru Soetanto Putra*, Abdul Gani Abdullah, Gunawan Djajaputra  
Tarumanagara University, Indonesia  
Received: 16/06/2020  
Accepted: 16/07/2020  
Published: 20/07/2020  
Abstract  
The length of the civil litigation process regarding land from the District Court, the High Court to the final level and legal  
protection of the assets seized as well as proof of ownership of land or building rights are certificates. Based on these problems, it can  
be analyzed the validity of the execution of the object of confiscation of land against the Land Use Certificate (SHGB) that has expired  
and can be analyzed what steps must be taken in protecting the assets confiscated in a civil case through the Civil Procedure Code, the  
Agrarian Regulation Indonesia, Indonesian Auction Regulations. Based on this analysis, the Confiscation, Execution and Building  
Rights Auction activities that have expired are the conclusions of this study.  
Keywords: Confiscated object, Certificate of building, Confiscation, Civil Engineering, Auction  
1
execution. Based on the above, the authors are interested in  
Introduction  
conducting research on how the legal certainty of the  
execution of the object seized collateral for land that has  
expired.  
One of the most important factors that are clearly  
considered and regulated is land management. Because the  
amount is limited and the need for land continues to increase,  
making land has a high value seen from any perspective,  
including the perspective of sociology, anthropology,  
psychology, politics, military and economics. So high land  
values because humans as social beings will defend their land  
in any way. Various human interests that conflict with each  
other relating to the control and ownership of land rights  
cause many cases of land. Problems that occur in the  
community relating to the control and ownership of land  
rights that require the government to make legal rules in the  
field of land (1). Written land law is realized by the existence  
of Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on  
Agrarian Principles (hereinafter referred to as UUPA). Since  
the promulgation of the UUPA, the National Agrarian Law  
has revoked regulations and decisions made during the Dutch  
East Indies Government, including Agrarishe Wet Stb. 1870  
No. 55 and Agrarische Besluit Stb. 1870 No.118 (1), (2). In  
the UUPA, the objectives of the enactment of the UU are: (1)  
Laying the foundations for the drafting of the National  
Agrarian Law, which will be a tool to bring prosperity,  
happiness and justice to the State and the people, especially  
the peasants, in the context of society just and prosperous; (2)  
Laying the groundwork for establishing the unity and  
simplicity of land law; (3) Laying the groundwork to provide  
legal certainty regarding land rights for the whole people. The  
absence of strict and comprehensive regulations that  
guarantee and provide legal certainty over the execution of a  
confiscated object in the form of land when the validity period  
expires. So in this paper the author wants to discuss in more  
detail about the transfer of land rights as objects of  
confiscation due to a court decision and legal certainty over its  
1 Execution of confiscated objects against land  
with a certificate of right to use for a building  
that has exhausted  
1) Confiscation Guarantee: Sita (Beslag) is a legal action  
of a court for a Defendant's movable and immovable property  
at the request of the Plaintiff to be monitored or taken to  
ensure that the Plaintiff's claim / authority of the Plaintiff does  
not become void. (1), (2), (3). Understanding foreclosure or  
conservatoir beslag stipulated in Article 227 paragraph 1  
HIR, Article 261 paragraph 1 RBg (2), (3): (a) Confiscate  
debtor's goods as long as a decision has not been handed  
down in the case; (b) the goal is that the goods are not  
embezzled or sequestered by the Defendant during the trial  
process, so that when the verdict is implemented, the  
repayment of the debt demanded by the plaintiff can be  
fulfilled by selling the confiscated goods.  
2) Collateral Confiscation Process: Confiscation of the  
property of the defendant can be carried out if there is a  
concern that the defendant will divert his goods. Usually it  
relates to lawsuits over payment of money or delivery of  
goods. With the confiscated goods, the goods (after the  
decision has legal status remains excecutorial beslag will be  
auctioned if the Defendant does not implement the decision  
and the auction will be used to pay the plaintiff.  
Guarantee seizure is confiscation that is used as a  
preparation for a decision to be carried out if it has permanent  
legal force (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). This is done so that later  
judicial proceedings and court decisions are not in vain. The  
confiscation of preparations aims to protect the disputed  
property (the treasured assets) from being sold or transferring  
their rights to someone else. This seizure also aims to ensure  
that the lawsuit is not empty (illusory), and maintain the  
*
Corresponding author: Heru Soetanto Putra, Tarumanagara  
University, Indonesia. E-mail: herusoetantoputra@gmail.com  
1200  
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages: 1200-1208  
certainty of the object of execution. In the case between the  
Tangerang Dharmaputra Foundation and Tjoa Sin Goan  
discussed earlier, the parties in this case the Tangerang  
Dharmaputra Foundation as a Legal Entity established based  
on existing legal provisions in Indonesia and Tjoa Sin Goan as  
Indonesian citizens have chosen to settle disputes in the legal  
field. Civil litigation with civil litigation. Civil Law is a  
regulation that regulates rights and obligations between  
individuals in social life. In the civil court itself, the  
settlement of the case is made in the form of a decision, the  
decision can be distinguished between the decision and the  
decision. The verdict is used as a term in a lawsuit case, in a  
lawsuit the case ends with a decision (contentious). Whereas  
the determination is used in a civil case (voluntary) (6).  
Settlement of cases by the parties through a civil court is in  
accordance with Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945  
Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which states that the  
Republic of Indonesia is the State of Law. Therefore, any  
problems that occur must be resolved by the provisions of  
applicable law. That the Dharmaputra Foundation has filed a  
civil suit against the law against Tjoa Sin Goan in the  
Tangerang District Court with a register number dated August  
free to judge whether the reasons have objective or subjective  
qualities. In addition, the plaintiff is obliged to mention the  
identity of the goods submitted in the confiscation guarantee.  
Request for confiscation can be submitted simultaneously  
with the lawsuit, or separately in a separate letter. In this case,  
the Plaintiff filed a request for confiscation of collateral  
incorporated in a lawsuit dated August 26, 2010 and was  
registered Number: 475 / PDT.G / 2010 / PN.TNG and also  
filed a separate application in the seizure request letter dated  
March 9, 2010. Reason the plaintiff in the confiscation  
request:  
(a) That the Petitioner is the Plaintiff who has filed a lawsuit  
against the law in the Tangerang District Court with Case  
Number 475 / PDT.G / 2010 / PN.TNG against Tjoa Sin  
Goan as the Defendant;  
(b) That the Defendant could not account for student savings  
ranging from kindergarten to high school level at the  
Dharmaputra Educational Foundation in Tangerang  
amounting to Rp. 153,864,200 (one hundred fifty three  
million eight hundred sixty four thousand two hundred  
rupiahs) held in the account of Bank Ekonomi Account  
Number 2692970878 in the name of the Defendant;  
(c) That the Defendant could not be held responsible for the  
remaining / difference in student activities ranging from  
Kindergarten to High School Level at the Dharmaputra  
Educational Foundation in Tangerang in the amount of  
Rp.1,144,519,645 (one billion one hundred forty four  
million five hundred and nineteen six hundred forty five  
rupiah) which deposited in the Bank Ekonomi account  
Account Number 2602070061 in the name of the  
Defendant.  
2
6, 2010. That the Dharmaputra Foundation in addition to  
filing a collateral confiscation in a civil suit also filed a  
separate seizure guarantee. Submitting request for  
a
confiscation to guarantee the payment of compensation for  
damages caused by the defendant, if the verdict of the panel of  
judges accepts the suit and punishes the Defendant to make  
the payment. This is in accordance with the provisions of  
Article 226 and Article 227 HIR or Article 720 Rv or based  
on SEMA No. 5 of 1975, confiscation and order of  
confiscation, starting from the request or request of the  
plaintiff. In confiscating collateral, the legal basis for  
confiscation of property belonging to the defendant is Article  
(d) That to ensure that the Plaintiff's claim does not become  
useless, confiscation of the following objects should be  
placed:  
2
27 paragraph (1) HIR / Article 261 paragraph (1) R.bg. This  
Land and buildings situated at Princess Island Block VII  
VII 01 No. 42 Modernland, Tangerang City on behalf of the  
Defendant , along with everything that is now / or later  
established on that land which due to its nature and  
designation or according to custom / legal regulations (Law)  
is considered as a fixed object (immovable). In submitting an  
application for confiscation, the Dharmaputra Foundation as  
the Petitioner also submitted evidence of documents  
supporting the arguments of the petition:  
a. Photocopy of Deed of Establishment of the Dharmaputra  
Tangerang Education Foundation in 1980 based on deed  
number 05 of 1980 made before the Notary Mrs. Nuryani  
Dwi, SH dated 7 February 1980, marked P-1A;  
confiscation was carried out for both the movable and  
immovable property of the defendant. These items are either  
in the hands of the defendant or are being controlled by  
another party. In terms of the case between the Foundation  
Dharmaputra Tangerang as plaintiff against Tjoa Sin Goan as  
Defendant objects belonging to the defendant presented for  
sequestration is the form of the object is not moving, that's a  
plot of land and house located at Princess Island VII Block  
VII 01 No. 42 Modernland, City Tangerang belongs to  
Defendant SHGB No. 651 / Cikokol . In the confiscation of  
confiscated beslag , it must be the property of the defendant,  
not belonging to a third party, because what can be used as  
collateral in a case is only the property of the defendant as a  
litigant. The main reasons for the seizure request according to  
Article 227 HIR and Article 720 Rv, namely:  
b. Photocopy of Deed of Amendment to the Articles of  
Association of the Dharmaputra Education Number 114  
dated October 7, 1994, marked P-1B;  
(
a) There is a concern or suspicion that the defendant:  
c. Photocopy of Deed of Adjustment to the amendment to  
the Articles of Association with Notary Deed Agus  
Santoso Suryadi, SH, MH, M.Sc., M.Kn.Number 02 dated  
May 2, 2007, marked P-2;  
1
2
) Looking for ways to embezzle or alienate their assets;  
) This was done during the case inspection process.  
(
b) The concern or suspicion must be objective and  
objectively reasonable:  
) The plaintiff must be able to show facts about the  
d. Photocopy of student savings account account deposited  
in the account of Bank Ekonomi Account Number  
2602070878 in the name of the Defendant, marked P-3;  
e. Photocopy of proof of returning student savings totaling  
Rp. 392,348,200 (three hundred million ninety two  
million three hundred and forty eight thousand two  
hundred rupiah) in the form of a list of names of students  
returning their savings with the date and amount of the  
refund, marked (P-4); Which proves the return of student  
savings.  
1
defendant's steps to embezzle or alienate his property  
during the inspection process;  
2) At least the plaintiff can show an objective indication  
of the existence of the defendant's efforts to eliminate or  
alienate the goods in order to avoid a lawsuit.  
(
c) There is a close relationship between the contents of the  
lawsuit and the confiscation, which if the confiscation is  
not carried out and the defendant misappropriates the  
assets, resulting in losses to the Plaintiff.  
f. Photocopy of proof of return of student savings by  
Defendant Stage I amounting to Rp. 50,000,000 (fifty  
million rupiahs) marked with P-5A;  
The assessment of the reasons for the confiscation petition  
is the authority of the judge examining the case. Judges are  
1201  
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages: 1200-1208  
g. Photocopy of proof of returning student savings by  
Defendant Phase II amounting to Rp. 188,484,000 (one  
hundred eighty eight million four hundred eighty four  
thousand rupiah), marked P-5B;  
p. Photocopy of proof of subpoena II by the Plaintiff's  
attorney so that the Defendant is immediately responsible  
for the student savings and the activities of the student,  
marked P-11B;  
h. Photocopy of receipt of loan money from the coach to be  
used to return the shortage of student savings to students  
and / or parents of students: 1) Rp. 153,864,200 (one  
hundred fifty three million eight hundred sixty four  
thousand two hundred rupiah) with details of Rp.  
q. Photocopy of summons evidence III by the Plaintiff's  
attorney so that the Defendant is immediately responsible  
for the student savings and the activities of the student,  
marked P-11C;  
After the panel of judges examining the case considering  
the arguments and evidence as the basis for the petition, on  
March 17, 2011 issued Determination Number: 475 / PDT.G /  
2010 / PN.TNG, which decided as follows: (a) to grant the  
claim of confiscation of the Plaintiff as mentioned above and  
(b) ordered the Registrar / Bailiff of the Tangerang District  
Court or if unable to be replaced by his authorized  
representative accompanied by 2 (two) witnesses who  
fulfilled the requirements as specified in Article 197 HIR to  
confiscate (Conservatoir Beslag) the Defendant's assets in the  
form of Land and Building located on Jalan Pulau Putri VII  
block VII 01 No. 42 Modernland, Kota Tangerang-Banten on  
behalf of the Defendant.  
1
50,000,000 (one hundred and fifty million rupiah) on  
April 16, 2009, marked as P-6A; 2) In the amount of Rp.  
,130,100 (three million one hundred thirty thousand one  
3
hundred rupiah) on August 3, 2009, marked P-6B; and 3)  
Rp. 734,100 (seven hundred thirty four thousand one  
hundred rupiah) on August 29, 2009, marked P-6C.  
i. Photocopy of Defendant's statement letter will be  
responsible for the shortage of student savings which  
cannot be returned to students who according to the  
Defendant is only Rp 140,000,000 (one hundred and forty  
million rupiah), marked with P-7;  
j. Photocopy of student savings accounts starting from  
kindergarten, elementary, junior high, and high school  
level which are stored in Bank Ekonomi Account Number  
Determination of the judge who states that the petition for  
confiscation is one of the forms of a judge in the form of an  
interlocutory p judge containing orders that must be carried  
out by the parties to the litigation to facilitate the judge  
completing the examination of the case, before he decides the  
final decision . The interim messenger does not stand alone,  
but is a unity with the final decision on the subject matter.  
That the judge on a request to make injunction before  
dropping the final decision with regard to the subject matter.  
3) Execution of Confiscated Collateral: according to Prof.  
R. Subekti is the implementation of a decision that can no  
longer be changed, voluntarily obeyed by the disputing party.  
So in the meaning of words, the execution already implies that  
the losing party inevitably must obey the decision voluntarily,  
so the decision must be forced upon him with the help of the  
general power. What is meant by public power is the police  
even if necessary by the military (armed forces) (4). Whereas  
in the case between the Tangerang Dharmaputra Foundation  
as the Plaintiff and Tjoa Sin Goan as the Defendant despite  
Determination Number 475 / PDT.G / 2010 / PN.TNG dated  
March 17, 2011 concerning Confiscation of Guarantees.  
Furthermore, it was strengthened by Decision Number 475 /  
PDT.G / 2010 / PN.TNG dated June 13, 2011 which stated  
that the Confiscation Guarantee was legal and valuable. The  
process of execution of objects placed as collateral for the  
implementation of the fulfillment of the decision is not  
necessarily able to be carried out. This is because the  
execution of confiscation of collateral is carried out, if the  
Defendant does not implement the decision of a judge with  
permanent legal force. In the case between the Tangerang  
Dharmaputra Foundation as the Plaintiff and Tjoa Sin Goan as  
the Defendant, even though the Plaintiff was won in the first  
instance lawsuit, the Defendant filed an appeal against the  
decision (7). The Defendant who did not accept the Tangerang  
District Court Decision No: 475 / Pdt.G / 2010 / PN.TNG was  
read on May 4, 2011 to take legal action by submitting an  
appeal. The appeal was stated in the minutes of the appeal  
appeal statement on the District Court Decision No: 475 /  
Pdt.G / 2010 / PN.TNG on May 9, 2011 at the Banten High  
Court. Whereas the legal remedies filed by the Defendant  
formally met the requirements for filing an appeal, so that it  
was appropriate that the Banten High Court accepted the  
appeal from the Defendant. Whereas in this case, before the  
case file was sent to the High Court, the parties had been  
given the opportunity to examine each case in accordance  
with the notice dated August 15, 2011 and August 19, 2011.  
2
602070061 in the name of Defendant, marked P-8;  
k. Photocopy of detailed evidence of income and  
expenditure of activities from kindergarten, elementary,  
junior high, and high school levels as follows: 1)  
Photocopy of report on the receipt of money for the  
activities of the head of the education and teaching section  
of the 2005/2006 school year with the difference between  
the income minus the expenditure of Rp. 559,365,000 -  
Rp. 196,088,630 = Rp. 363,276,370 (three hundred sixty  
three million two hundred seventy six thousand three  
hundred seventy rupiahs), marked with P-9A, P-9A1 and  
P -9A2; 2) Photocopy of the report on the receipt of  
money for the activities of the head of the education and  
teaching section for the 2006/2007 school year, with the  
difference in revenue and deducted by expenditure of Rp.  
555,120,000 - Rp. 270,011,590 = Rp. 285,108,410, - (two  
hundred eighty-five million one hundred eight thousand  
four hundred and ten rupiah), marked with P-9B; 3)  
Photocopy of report on receipt of money for the activities  
of the head of the education and teaching division for the  
2
007/2008 academic year, with the difference in revenue  
and deducted by expenditure of Rp. 563,350,000 - Rp.  
63,073,585 = Rp. 200,276,415 (two hundred million two  
3
hundred seventy-six thousand four hundred and fifteen  
rupiah), marked P-9C; and 4) Photocopy of the report on  
the receipt of money for the activities of the head of the  
education and teaching division for the 2008/2009  
academic year, with the difference in revenue and  
deducted by expenditure of Rp. 522,50,000 - Rp.  
266,646,550 = Rp. 295,858,450 (two hundred ninety five  
million eight hundred fifty eight thousand four hundred  
fifty rupiah), marked P-9D;  
l. Photocopy of evidence of the letter of deactivation of the  
Defendant as the Trustees of the Tangerang Dharmaputra  
Education Foundation, marked P-10A;  
m. Photocopy of evidence of the dismissal of the Defendant's  
letter as the Trustee of the Dharmaputra Education  
Foundation in Tangerang, marked P-10B;  
n. Photocopy of receipt of the Tangerang Metro District  
Police Assistant Investigator, marked with P-10C;  
o. Photocopy of proof of subpoena I by the Plaintiff's  
attorney so that the Defendant is immediately responsible  
for student savings and activities of the student, marked P-  
11A;  
1202  
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques  
2020, Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages: 1200-1208  
However, both the Defendants originally did not submit an  
Appeal and Comparative Memory from the Plaintiff also does  
not file an Appeal Memory Counter.  
a. The Cassation / Appellant / Defendant / Defendant is  
declared to have committed an unlawful act resulting in a  
loss to the Respondent / Appellant / Plaintiff's total  
amount of Rp. 1,298,383,845 (one billion two hundred  
million ninety eight million three hundred eighty three  
thousand rupiah eight hundred forty-five rupiah);  
b. The Cassation / Appellant / Defendant / Defendant is  
sentenced to compensate the Complainant / Appellant /  
Plaintiff for the illegal acts committed with a total amount  
of Rp. 1,298,383,845 (one billion two hundred million  
ninety eight million three hundred eighty three thousand  
rupiah eight hundred forty-five rupiah); at the same time  
and at the latest 8 (eight) days after the decision in this  
case has permanent and definite legal force;  
c. The Panel of Judges in their decision based on legal  
considerations stated that a valid and valuable seizure was  
carried out by a bailiff in the Tangerang District Court  
over:  
d. A plot of land and a house is located on the road: Pulau  
Putri VII Block VII 01 No. 42 Modernland, Kota  
Tangerang on behalf of Defendant SHGB No. 651 /  
Cikokol;  
That formally before the appeal is decided by the High  
Court, the appeal can be revoked by the Applicant. If the case  
file has not been sent to the Court of Appeals. Revocation  
submitted to the district court concerned, then by the clerk  
was made the deed revocation of the appeal request. The new  
verdicts obtain permanent legal force after the appeal period  
ends. At the time of the appeal level there was no revocation  
by the appellant (3). The parties in this case did not file an  
appeal memory or counter memory appeal. In addition, there  
was no revocation of the appeal submitted by the appeal  
applicant. The Panel of Judges examining the case continued  
the examination of the case. Because there is no appeal or  
counter memory of the appeal submitted by the parties, the  
panel examined the appeal based on legal considerations in  
the decision issued by the Tangerang District Court Judges  
who examined the case. After the High Court has observed  
that all of the legal facts and / or evidence have been properly  
and correctly considered by the First-rate Judges according to  
the law, therefore the legal considerations of the First-Level  
Judges were taken over by the High Court and used as their  
own considerations in deciding this case. . Based on these  
considerations, the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the  
Tangerang District Court's decision dated May 4, 2011  
Number: 475 / Pdt.G / 2010 / PN.TNG for which an appeal  
was appealed may be retained, therefore it must be upheld.  
Whereas the verdict decided by the Panel of Judges  
examining the case in Decision Number 74 / Pdt / 2011 /  
PT.Btn dated October 27, 2011, namely: (a) Receive an  
appeal from the Defendant originally Defendant; (b) To affirm  
the Tangerang District Court Decision dated May 4, 2011  
Number 475 / Pdt.G / 2010 / PN.TNG for which the appeal  
was filed; (c) Punishing the Appellant Previously the  
Defendant to pay the costs of this case in the two court levels,  
which in the level of appeal was Rp. 150,000 (one hundred  
fifty thousand rupiah).  
e. Punishing the Cassation  
/ Comparator / Defendant  
Applicant to pay the costs incurred in the case, which until  
now has been calculated as Rp. 1,177,000 (one million  
one hundred seventy-seven thousand rupiah), at the First  
District Court;  
f. Sentencing the Kasai / Appellant / Defendant to pay this  
case fee in the Court of Appeals, which in the appellate  
rate is Rp.150,000 (one hundred and fifty thousand  
rupiah).  
g. Punishing the Cassation Appellant / Appellant / Defendant  
to pay the court fee in this Cassation Decision amounting  
to Rp. 500,000 (five hundred thousand rupiah).  
After the cassation decision is notified to the parties to the  
litigation to be implemented immediately. However, it was  
not carried out voluntarily by the Defendant / Appellant /  
Appellant of Cassation for the Decision on Cassation Number:  
823 K / PDT / 2012. Therefore sequestration that has been  
placed on the object land and buildings in Housing  
Modernland Jalan Putri Island VII VII 01 Block 42, Village  
Coconut Beautiful, District of Tangerang, Tangerang City,  
transformed into Sita execution which means it can be run  
directly without the need for the establishment of judges back.  
Decision Number 74 / Pdt / 2011 / PT.Btn has been  
notified to the original Appellant Defendant on November 14,  
2
011, then on November 25, 2011 verbally stated the appeal  
request, as evidently in the deed of appeal application  
Number: 475 / Pdt.G / 2010 / PN. TNG and accompanied by  
Cassation Memory on December 9, 2011. The Respondent of  
Cassation / Plaintiff / Compared has submitted an answer to  
the cassation memory dated January 10, 2012. The Supreme  
Court in checking a case that after looking at the arguments  
put forward by the parties to convince the judges who hear  
cases and has done legal considerations. So that on 12  
September 2012 makes decision n indicated in the Decision  
No. 823 K / PDT / 2012 in the verdict as follows: (a) Refuse  
an appeal request from the Appellant: Tjoa Sin Goan; and (b)  
Punish the Cassation Applicant / Plaintiff to pay the court fee  
in this cassation rate of Rp. 500,000 (five hundred thousand  
rupiah). The cassation decision on the case was then notified  
to the Plaintiff / Respondent of Cassation on May 2, 2013 and  
to the Defendant / Cassation Appellant on 8 May 2013. That  
as of the issuance and notification of the Supreme Court's  
Appeals in the case between the Dharmaputra Foundation  
against Tjoa Sin Goan, then the examination of the case of tort  
against the law has permanent legal force, so it is obligatory to  
carry out immediately. Based on the Cassation Decision  
Number: 823 K / PDT / 2012, the Defendant is obliged to  
implement the contents of Tangerang District Court's  
Decision Number 475 / PDT.G / 2010 / PN. TNG Jo. Banten  
District Court Decision Number: 74 / PDT / 2011 / PT.BTN  
among them, as follows:  
2
Auction of transfer of land rights in auction  
for the certificate of building use rights that are  
exhausted  
2
.1 Legitimate transfer of rights  
Auction includes a special agreement, namely a named  
agreement, has its own name, namely auction. Auction is an  
activity of selling agreement as it is also regulated in the Civil  
Code. The elements contained in the sale and purchase are  
also contained in the auction, namely: 1) the existence of legal  
subjects, namely sellers and buyers; 2) there is an agreement,  
namely an agreement between the seller and the buyer  
regarding the price; and 3) the rights and obligations that arise  
for the parties, namely between the seller and the buyer. The  
most essential thing in auctions and buying and selling is the  
delivery of goods which become objects in the sale and  
purchase or auction and payment of the price of the object.  
Basically the auction is the sale of goods to the public or in  
public. Because of that, the auction is often referred to as  
general sales. The fundamental difference between auctions  
and buying and selling is found in the implementation  
process, namely where the buying and selling process is  
1203