<![CDATA[In practice, money Deposit agreements are often disguised as interest-bearing loan agreements, creating legal uncertainty that bears directly on the validity of the agreement itself. This study examines that validity by asking whether such agreements satisfy the legal requirements for a valid contract and reflect the true nature of a money deposit agreement under the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata), taking Decision of the Kepahiang District Court Number 2/Pdt.G/2025/PN Kph as its central case. Using a normative juridical method with a descriptive-analytical design, the study draws on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials through library research, analyzed qualitatively. The findings show that once money formally labeled as "custody" is in fact used, managed, and redistributed to a third party at interest, the agreement no longer fits Article 1694 of the KUHPerdata but instead falls under Article 1754 on loan agreements. Because this mismatch between label and substance obscures the parties' true legal relationship, it undermines the free will required for valid consent under Article 1320 of the KUHPerdata, a defect further evidenced by a breach of the good faith principle in Article 1338(3), reflected in interest rates far above customary levels and the absence of any real room for negotiation. The agreement is therefore not void by operation of law but voidable (vernietigbaar), with annulment taking effect only once the aggrieved party petitions the court.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
