The plaintiff submitted that she had leveraged a property she owned in order to obtain a loan agreement (dated: 13 March 2008) from the first defendant, the term of which was ten years (or 120 months). When the plaintiff subsequently defaulted on repayments, the first defendant sought to auction the property. The plaintiff submitted, however, that she had not defaulted on the loan because the term of the loan was until 13 March 2018. Moreover, that, before the property was to be auctioned, she was entitled to receive from the Surakarta Religious Court a letter of summation quantifying any outstanding repayments.
The first defendant submitted, as an exception to the plaintiff's claim, that the plaintiff had defaulted on the loan agreement, and that the plaintiff's claim was not founded in law.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that the plaintiff had been dutifully notified of the imminent auctioning of the property, and that she had still failed to rectify her default.