A. On March 25, 2004, the Plaintiff became a member of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and was issued as a general director for management of the local subsidiary and served in Bangladesh from April 1, 2004.

B. C was merged with the Defendant on December 2, 2017, and thereafter the Plaintiff continued to work in a local subsidiary as an employee belonging to the Defendant, and received wages of KRW 6,590,000 per month from March 2018 after the said merger.

C. The Plaintiff’s wages from May to September 2019 as shown in attached Table 2, as well as wages from May 2, 2019 to wages from November 2019, and the unpaid wages are the amount indicated in attached Table 1 [Attachment Table 1].

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 16 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the facts of the above recognition, the defendant who succeeded to employment of C is obligated to pay to the plaintiff delay damages at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act from the date of each entry to the date of full payment, which falls on the 14th day following the following day from the date of the payment of the wages for each of the corresponding months in attached Table 1, which falls on the day after the 14th day from the date of the payment of the wages for each of the corresponding months.

Accordingly, the Defendant alleged that C was unaware of the existence of the Plaintiff at the time of the merger with C because C was actually in a de facto discontinuance of business for a long period of time, and that C did not have any succession to employment of the Plaintiff. However, according to the above evidence, C had no profit from the sales from 2014 to 2017, and was also written in the financial statements, and the amount of wages for employees was also stated in the financial statements. The Plaintiff was paid monthly wages from the Defendant for at least one year after the merger. Thus, the Defendant is well aware of the existence of the Plaintiff.