1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. If a copy of a written complaint, original copy, etc. of judgment regarding the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion was 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 was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da30427, Aug. 22, 1997). The court of first instance rendered a judgment on March 20, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint against the defendant, notification of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, on which the court of first instance held a pleading. The original judgment also served on the defendant by public notice. The defendant filed a subsequent appeal on March 30, 2015 after being issued the original judgment of the first instance on March 26, 2015. According to each of the above facts of recognition, the defendant becomes aware that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice on March 26, 2015, and thus, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion filed within two weeks from that time is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) each “B” of the “1. Basic Facts” of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended to “Defendant”; (b) the Defendant’s new arguments in the trial of the court of first instance are added under the third 8th part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) the part on “the grounds for the claim” of the “2. Judgment on the grounds for the claim” (p) is the same as the part on the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The Defendant’s additional determination shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000 per month a monthly support fee, and shall keep the amount equivalent to KRW 200,000 in cash to the Plaintiff and the denying N (Death, October 31, 2010) and shall be paid from the said money.