<![CDATA[The execution of Mortgage Rights (Hak Tanggungan/HT) through auction constitutes a legal mechanism for resolving disputes arising from defaults in bank credit agreements. However, there is currently no specific regulation governing the standards for determining the auction limit price of Mortgage Rights objects. As a result, when a debtor defaults, the auctioned Mortgage Rights object may fail to generate sufficient proceeds to fully settle the bank’s outstanding receivables. This study aims to analyze the resolution of disputes concerning the sale value of Mortgage Rights objects auctioned below market value from the perspective of evidentiary principles in Civil Procedural Law. This normative legal research employs a statutory approach, conceptual approach, and case study approach. The results indicate that although there is a written credit agreement between the bank and the debtor secured by a Mortgage Rights object whose value generally exceeds the amount of the debt, in practice, when the debtor defaults and the Mortgage Rights object is sold through auction, the proceeds may still be insufficient to repay the bank’s outstanding debt. This study proposes that, in cases where a debtor defaults on a bank credit agreement and the Mortgage Rights object has been auctioned, the court should impose the burden of proof on the bank to demonstrate that the auction process conducted over the Mortgage Rights object complied with applicable legal provisions. Therefore, if the auction proceeds are insufficient to cover the outstanding debt, such deficiency should become the bank’s risk and should not be imposed upon the debtor. This approach is essential to ensure legal certainty and justice.]]>
