1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (i) On February 23, 2018, the Plaintiff driven, at around 20:55, 000, BM5 car while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.105%, from the mutual influence point of Gwangju City to E in the front road of Gwangju City, approximately 500 meters.

B. On March 9, 2018, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, which revoked the driver’s license (Class I common) based on Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

Article 22(1) of the former Administrative Appeals Commission Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20357, May 1, 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 disposition of this case is unlawful since it abused its discretionary authority, considering the following: (i) whether the disposition of this case is legitimate; (ii) that only a simple driving without an accident; (iii) that the blood alcohol content exceeds 0.1% which is the criteria for cancellation of license; (iv) that the police conducted faithfully the investigation into the case; and (v) that if the long-distance driving as a company member is unable to be conducted, there is an obstacle to performing its duties; and (v) that it is in an economically difficult position.

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%.