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

B. On June 12, 2018, 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 II common).

Article 22(1) of the former Administrative Appeals Commission Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Aug. 14, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 2420, Aug. 14, 2018)

【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 discretion, considering the following as a whole: (i) whether it is legitimate of the instant disposition; (ii) the Plaintiff is merely a simple driving without an accident; (iii) the ordinary party uses a substitute driving; (iv) actively cooperate with the police investigation; and (v) the driver’s license is required for the performance of duties and family life as a whole; and (iv) the instant disposition is unlawful since it abused discretion.

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, when driving under the influence of alcohol (not less than 0.1% of blood alcohol level) shall be determined based on the revocation of the license, and the disposition penalty shall be mitigated to 110 points for the "persons who have been given an official commendation by the chief of a police station or higher for at least three years as an exemplary driver, or who have been given an official commendation by the chief of a police station after causing a traffic accident or arresting an escape driver and do not meet the specified exclusion requirements." One of the requirements for exclusion from mitigation, when driving under the influence of alcohol exceeds 0.12%, causing a traffic accident during drinking.