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

B. On June 12, 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, Aug. 31, 2017).

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul’s 4 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused discretion and abused it, considering the following as a whole: (i) whether the instant disposition is lawful; (ii) the Plaintiff is merely a simple drunk driving without any personal or material injury; (iii) the distance of driving is only about 3 km; (iv) the level of driving was used as an agent; (v) the police investigation was faithfully conducted; and (v) the company is in charge of external affairs in the company and its family life need to obtain a driver’s license for work

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 disposal penalty points may be mitigated to 110 points for “a person who is an important means to maintain his family’s livelihood or is engaged in transportation service for not less than three years at the time of the disposition as an exemplary driver, or who has received an official commendation from the chief of a police station or higher by causing a traffic accident and arresting an escape driver and does not meet the specified exclusion requirements.” One of the requirements for the exclusion of mitigation, the blood alcohol concentration exceeds 0.12%.