1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (i) On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff driven approximately 2 km from the upstream where the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol of 0.142% by blood alcohol concentration around 06:13, 2016, to the 13-km air route as it was transmitted within the east-si.

B. On October 26, 2016, 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 and class I large vehicles).

On November 3, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said request on December 2, 2016.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, Eul’s evidence 4 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (1) Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, considering the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff was under drinking alcohol while drinking alcohol on the immediately preceding night night, but was under drinking alcohol control on the way that she goes to work as her ready-mixed company; (b) blood alcohol concentration has been 0.102% in pulmonary measurement; (c) blood alcohol concentration has been measured excessively at 0.142% as a result of blood collection conducted by the police officer controlling that blood collection can be reduced or exempted; (d) blood alcohol concentration has been measured excessively at 0.142%; (e) the disabled C (the head of the disabled), etc., who is the most person of distinguished service to the State, is an exemplary driver with no history of traffic accident for about 20 years; and (e) the best driver with no history of traffic accident; and (e) the contribution and previous studies that have been dedicated to the development of a felball for the poor in the neighborhood for about 7 years, the disposition of this case should be revoked since it deviates or abused discretionary power.

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 cancellation of the license, and the ‘driving' shall become an important means to maintain his family's livelihood.