2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

B. On June 1, 2017, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the grounds of Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, which revoked the driver’s license (Class I common).

Article 22(1) of the former Administrative Appeals Commission Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Sep. 5, 2017).

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 4 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused the discretionary authority and thus should be revoked, considering the following as a whole: (i) whether the instant disposition is lawful; (ii) the Plaintiff merely a simple drinking without any personal or material injury accident; (iii) the Plaintiff intended to call a substitute driving engineer on the day of the instant case but has been inevitably driven due to the lack of exhauster; (iv) the driving distance is relatively short; and (v) actively cooperated with the investigative agency; and (v) the Plaintiff’s driving license is required for family life as it

According to Article 93(1)1 of the Luxembourg Road Traffic Act and Article 91(1)28 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the time when a person drives under the influence of alcohol (not less than 0.1% of blood alcohol concentration) shall be determined based on the revocation of the license, and the disposition penalty points may be mitigated to 110 points for “a person who has been given an official commendation by the chief of a police station or higher official by causing a traffic accident or who has been given an exemplary driver who has been given an official commendation by the chief of a police station or higher for at least three years at the time of the disposition as an exemplary driver.”