The plaintiff is one of the major banks in Korea and owns a large building in Myeong-dong, Seoul, entrusted by A Asset Management, the largest domestic asset management company. The plaintiff initially entered into a short-term lease contract with the defendant, who operated several "pop-up stores" in Myeong-dong during the COVID-19 pandemic. The initial contract period was 6 months, and the parties extended the contract through four subsequent short-term leases, each lasting 2 to 3 months.

Once the COVID-19 situation stabilized, the plaintiff refused further renewal of the short-term leases and requested the defendant to vacate the premises. However, the defendant refused to vacate, claiming the right to lease renewal under Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. In response, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding the delivery of the building, arguing that the lease fell under the category of "lease for temporary use" as stipulated in Article 16 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, thus invalidating the defendant's right to renewal. We successfully represented the plaintiff, winning both the first trial and the appeal trial.

Article 16 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act stipulates, "This Act shall not apply if it is clear that the lease is for temporary use." This provision creates an exception for leases intended for temporary use from the general protections of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. However, there has been no established legal definition or consistent precedent on what constitutes a "lease for temporary use."

We (a) clearly explained the concept and legislative intent of "lease for temporary use" to the court, (b) diligently researched and reviewed lower court precedents related to the matter, presenting favorable circumstances, and (c) actively argued and demonstrated several key points: (i) the lease in question was a short-term lease for "pop-up stores," (ii) the rent was significantly lower than the market rate, (iii) the plaintiff distinguished between formal lease contracts and leases for temporary use, and (iv) emails sent by the defendant showed that the defendant was aware the lease was intended for temporary use. These arguments proved that the lease was indeed a "lease for temporary use," thereby nullifying the defendant's right to demand renewal.

As a result, the plaintiff's claim was fully upheld in the first trial. Though the defendant appealed and sought a stay of execution, the appeal was dismissed, and the defendant voluntarily vacated the premises.

This case marks a significant appellate court decision on the issue of leases for temporary use under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. It is expected to serve as an important reference in future cases.

□  Attorneys in charge: Noh Man-Kyeong, Son Young-Ho and Choi Young-Su