1. The defendant shall pay 3,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 6, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and Eul evidence No. 1.

On November 13, 2012, the Defendant leased the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to Nonparty C for a deposit of KRW 50 million and the contract period from November 13, 2012 to November 12, 2014.

B. On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order against C with respect to KRW 33 million among the claims for return of the above lease deposit against C by the Incheon District Court Decision 2015TTTT31373, and the above collection order was served on the Defendant on December 3, 2015.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the above lease contract was terminated upon the expiration of the period, the Defendant, the lessor, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the collection right holder of the above lease deposit, the amount of KRW 33,000,000, which is the claim amount of the seizure and collection order of this case among the lease deposit, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 6, 2016 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

With respect to the interest rate on the damages for delay of the claim for the collection amount of this case, the plaintiff filed a claim with 10% per annum, which is the interest rate on the authentic deed of the monetary loan contract against C. However, since the lawsuit of this case is a claim for the collection amount based on the collection order of this case, the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot exceed the "request amount" of the collection order of this case. According to the evidence No. 1, the claim amount of the seizure and collection order of this case is only 33 million won per principal, and there is no indication as to the interest and delay damages. Thus, the claim for the damages for delay amounting to 10% per annum, which is not included in the above order, cannot be accepted, and in light of the purport of the written claim for modification of