A. On October 5, 2017, the Plaintiff became a member of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and was issued as a director in charge of its business as a local subsidiary and served in Bangladesh from October 16, 2017.

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 4,740,000 per month from May 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.

In this regard, the defendant alleged that C was in a de facto discontinuance of business without a long-term business activity at the time of the merger with C, and that C was not aware of the existence of the plaintiff, and that there was no succession to employment for the plaintiff. However, according to the above evidence, C was in the financial statements from 2014 to 2017, and there was no profit from the sales amount. The financial statements also stated the wage details for the employees. The plaintiff was paid monthly wages from the defendant for at least one year after the merger. Thus, the defendant's existence is well-grounded.