(a) The method of demanding the return of a lender in a loan for consumption that does not specify the time of return; and

(b) Where the cause of claim is asserted under a loan for consumption, but it is changed to that under a quasi-loan contract, and any change in claim;

In the case of a loan for consumption with no time fixed for its return, the notice of its return may be served by the warden, and if a considerable period has elapsed from that time until the closing of argument, the borrower shall lose his right of defense.

Article 603(2) of the Civil Act; Article 235(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Fixed-term gold

Lee Jae-soo et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 62Na232 delivered on February 12, 1963, Decision 62Na232 delivered on February 12, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The Defendant’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 1

In the context of a loan for consumption, if there is no agreement on the time of repayment, the person who lent the loan shall demand the return with a reasonable period fixed, and the person who lent the loan shall demand the return with a reasonable period fixed, in accordance with Article 603(2) of the Civil Act, because there is no provision on the method of peremptory notice, it can be performed by the service of the gusheshe, and if the period of time required for the preparation for payment has elapsed from that time to the end of pleading, the gushe shall lose the right of defense as above. The records of this case are reasonable to view that the defendants received the copy so that the gushe can be made and a considerable period of time has elapsed after receiving the peremptory notice of return because the date of the closing of argument is January 27, 1963. Therefore, even if the court below did not decide on the defendants' defenses, it cannot affect the result of the original judgment.

As to the second ground for appeal

According to the records of this case, it is clear that the plaintiff asserted the cause of the claim as a result of a loan contract for consumption, but it was changed into a quasi-loan contract, so the above two causes of the claim cannot be deemed to be changed into the basis of the claim, and the records also do not cause a substantial delay in litigation, so there is no error of law as to the new cause of claim under the premise that the alteration of the lawsuit is not a change in the litigation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge) shall have the highest leapbal leapap