[1] Criteria for determining whether construction machinery is used as work machinery for its original purpose

[2] In a case where the owner is not a general road but a person causing an accident while carrying goods in the workplace, the case holding that the insurer is not obligated to pay insurance money in accordance with the insurance clause that the owner is a construction machine, which is an accident that occurred during the use of the work machine for its original purpose, and thus, does not compensate for losses caused by an accident that occurred during the use of the construction machine as the work machine

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Song Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

State Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Jin-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Na24651 Decided April 21, 2009

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Unlike ordinary vehicles, construction machinery is performing its original purpose, rather than its original purpose is performing the traffic function, and the traffic function of construction machinery is merely an incidental function to assist the performance of the work, and construction machinery is performing only the traffic function different from that of the work function which is its original purpose, it shall be treated as ordinary vehicles. However, it shall be deemed that it is used as work machinery if it is essential to the work function or is accompanied by the work function or is performed together with the work function.

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for insurance money on the ground that it is reasonable to see that the accident in this case occurred during the construction machinery's use of the work machinery as its original purpose, in light of the following: "The damage caused by an accident that occurred while the construction machinery is used as its work machinery shall not be compensated." The accident in this case occurred within a non-general road; the vehicle for which the accident in this case occurred at the time of the accident in this case was being loaded and transported with goods; and the above for which the above for which the above for which the accident in this case occurred is inevitable to perform both work and traffic functions.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of terms and conditions.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)