The debt described by class is one of the debt in which the debtor is bound to perform his obligation with a unspecified thing. The objective of this kind of debt is in general fungible things, but that can be infungible things. In this case, at first, the question is to distinguish this debt described by class from the debt described by choice. This is a matter of interpretation of the declaration of intention, but in the debt described by choice, the debtor can choose an inferior article, on contrary the creditor can choose the superior article. This is not reasonable. So in obscure case, it should be presumed that the debt was described by class in which, according to the article 375 of Korean Civil Code, the debt he shall deliver a thing of average kind and value.
For the performance this kind of debt, the objectives should be concentrated. The article 375 of Korean Civil Code has two standards to concentrate : the debtor has done whatever is necessary for the performance of that debt, or he has designated the objective under the consent of the creditor. When the debtor does not this, if the objectives described by class are fungibles, the creditor can, in practice, execute his credit with a judgement of compensation in substitutes to be paid in money. But if the objectives described by class are infungibles, the creditor can not use this way, because there is no legal reason. So Korean Supreme Court sentenced that, in this case, the regulation of the article 380 of Korean Civil Code concerning the right to choose in the debt described by choice can be analogized. But this is not reasonable, because, above mentioned, this way can affect the interests of person exercising the right to choose, and because the debt described by infungibles is a type of the debt of infungible act executed by indirect compulsory execution.