1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. If the legality of an appeal for subsequent completion, a copy of a complaint, an original copy of judgment, etc., were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the reason ceases to exist because he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to

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 delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, 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 party or legal representative

(2) The court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 2013). The court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 201) rendered a judgment that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant on March 18, 2015 after serving a copy of the complaint of this case and a writ of summons on the date of pleading by public notice, and served the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice only after obtaining a certified copy of the judgment upon receiving an application for perusal and duplication from this court on January 4, 2016, and the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on January 8, 2016. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s appeal of this case was lawful appeal that satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had no intention to care for the Plaintiff while living together with the Plaintiff, and deceiving the Plaintiff by examining the Plaintiff, who was in a state of de facto disability without having an intention to care for the Plaintiff, and thereby, by deceiving the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff.