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

B. On July 21, 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 1 common and class 2 common).

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

【Fact-finding, Gap’s evidence, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul’s evidence No. 4 through 11, the gist of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the following: (i) the instant disposition is lawful; (ii) the Plaintiff is merely a simple drinking without a traffic accident; (iii) the ordinary level of driving is relatively short; (iv) the distance of driving is actively cooperation in the investigation process; and (v) the Plaintiff is working at the construction site and needs a driver’s license for family life; and (iv) the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused discretion and abused 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 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%.