1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claims, including claims added in the trial, are all dismissed.

1. If the legality, copy, original copy, etc. of a written appeal for subsequent completion are served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist because he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the records of the case

(2) On January 10, 2013, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on March 31, 2014, with the knowledge that the judgment was served by service by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 201). On March 4, 2014, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on March 4, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and the date of pleading by public notice. The original judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant’s perusal of the record of the first instance trial on March 21, 2014, immediately before filing the appeal for subsequent completion of the instant case, was clearly recorded, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion of the litigation satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of the litigation.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff lived with the Defendant from March 2013 to October 1, 2013. The Defendant maintained an inappropriate relationship with the former male-gu during the said period, by deceiving the Plaintiff as if he were to marry without any intention to marry with the former male-gu, and let the Plaintiff enter into marriage, and as a total, 19,340.