1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (i) On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol at 0.154% of alcohol content on blood on April 21, 2017, was driving approximately 1 km in front of the right line C at the time of hydrowon, and caused physical damage to the Plaintiff.

B. On May 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 II common).

Article 22(1) of the former Administrative Appeals Commission Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20100, Jul. 11, 2017).

【Court-Appellants 1】 Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-2, Evidence No. 14, Evidence No. 4 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (i) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is legitimate, in full view of the following: (i) the Plaintiff’s member is the company and the need to drive cars to and from work; (ii) the support of the family under economic difficult circumstances; and (iii) the depth of the instant disposition, it is against the discretion, and thus, should be revoked as it deviates from and 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, the time when a person drives in a drunken state (not less than 0.1% of blood alcohol concentration) shall be determined on the basis of the revocation of the license, and the disposal penalty points shall be mitigated to 110 points for “a person who has been given an official commendation by the chief of a police station or higher official by causing a traffic accident and arresting an escape driver, and who has been given an official commendation by the chief of a police station or higher at the time of the disposition as an exemplary driver.” One of the requirements for the exclusion from mitigation is to drive in excess of 0.12% of blood alcohol concentration.