1. For the plaintiffs:

A. Defendant E is the Seoul Central District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 22, 1999, Defendant E (former before the mutual change: G; hereinafter “Defendant E”) entered into a contract establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis as of April 21, 2002 with the Plaintiffs as to the whole of the second underground floors (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the above real estate on April 22, 199 with the co-owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and concluded a contract establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis as of April 21, 2002 and April 21, 2002 with the return date, and completed the registration of lease on a deposit basis as of June 1, 199 with the Seoul Central District Court’s receipt of the registration of a right to lease on a deposit basis as of June 4813 (hereinafter “the instant right to lease on a deposit basis”). Defendant Eb. 201 delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs on June 21, 2002.

(c)

On the other hand, with respect to the claim for the return of the deposit money of this case, the provisional seizure of the deposit money of this case was completed on September 12, 2004 at the time of the provisional seizure of the deposit money of this case from Defendant Korea Technology Finance Corporation (Korea Technology Finance Corporation prior to the mutual change) on September 9, 2004 under the provisional seizure order of 115389 (the claim amounted to 38,99,000 won) which was received from this court on September 23, 2004; Defendant F Co., Ltd. received from this court on September 21, 2004 at the time of the provisional seizure of the deposit money of this case 121602 (the claim amounted to 413,260,273 won).

(d)

Defendant E entered into a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis for business purposes.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence, the purport of the entire pleadings (the plaintiff and defendant E), Article 150 (3), and Article 150 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act as confession (the plaintiff and the remaining defendants)

2. Determination

A. Since the statute of limitations expires if a claim arising from a commercial activity against Defendant E is not exercised for five years (Article 64 of the Commercial Act), it is apparent that Defendant E transferred the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs, and it has become more than five years from the date when the due date reaches. Thus, the claim for the return of the security deposit for lease on a deposit basis of this case is a claim.