Prajna Enggar Prakoso
Sebelas Maret University

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

THE APPLICATION OF THE PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL DOCTRINE TO CORPORATE BREACH OF CONTRACT DISPUTES THROUGH THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE: English Prajna Enggar Prakoso; Adi Sulistiyono; Hari Purwadi
SOSIOEDUKASI Vol 15 No 3 (2026): SOSIOEDUKASI : JURNAL ILMIAH ILMU PENDIDIKAN DAN SOSIAL
Publisher : Fakultas Keguruan Dan Ilmu Pendidikan Universaitas PGRI Banyuwangi

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36526/sosioedukasi.v15i3.9507

Abstract

A Limited Liability Company (Perseroan Terbatas) is a legal entity with a legal personality separate from its shareholders and corporate organs; therefore, it is generally governed by the principle of limited liability. However, under certain circumstances, this principle may be set aside through the piercing the corporate veil doctrine when the corporate entity is used to evade legal obligations or to commit abuses that cause harm to other parties. This study aims to analyze the application of the piercing the corporate veil doctrine in corporate breach of contract disputes through the alter ego doctrine, as well as to examine the construction of personal liability and the juridical parameters for imposing joint and several liability on corporate organs. This research employs a prescriptive doctrinal legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The case approach examines Indonesian court decisions, namely Decision Number 96/Pdt.G/2017/PN.Jkt.Sel. and Decision Number 47/Pdt.G/2021/PN.Mtr. Legal materials were collected through library and document research, encompassing primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources, and were analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicate that The alter ego doctrine may serve as an indicator in identifying the control and relationship between corporate organs and the company in determining personal liability. However, control over a company alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for applying the piercing the corporate veil doctrine.