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

B. On May 16, 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. 22, 2017).

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, 16, Eul’s evidence 4 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused discretion, in full view of the following: (i) whether the instant disposition is legitimate; (ii) the Plaintiff is merely a simple drinking without any personal or material injury accident; (iii) the Plaintiff used a substitute driving in the ordinary school; (iv) actively cooperated with the investigation agency; and (v) the Plaintiff’s work in the process management team of the sacrife germs, and thus the driver’s license is necessary

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 shall 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 is 0.12% of the blood alcohol concentration.