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

At the time, while driving four-lanes as the Olympic Games, the Plaintiff was faced with the shock absorption facilities installed on the right side of the road near the Mountain IC and caused the accidents involving the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. On November 27, 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).

On December 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said request on March 6, 2018.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s 20, 21 evidence, Eul’s 4 through 14, 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 has no traffic accident or alcohol driving force for about twenty-four (24) years; and (iii) the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license is required for the performance of duties and family livelihood

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 driver drivess in a drunken state (not less than 0.1% of blood alcohol level) 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 is an important means to maintain his family’s livelihood, is engaged in transport service activities 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 arresting the escape driver and does not meet the specified exclusion requirements.”