1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Around 18:50 on April 17, 2016, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s C Poter Cargo Vehicles, approximately 50 meters of which are owned by the Plaintiff, under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.139%.

B. On August 22, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver’s license (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the basis of Article 93(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act.

Article 22(1) of the former Administrative Appeals Commission Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Oct. 18, 2016).

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 4 through 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (i) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is legitimate, considering the following as a whole: (i) the developments leading up to his/her drunk driving; (ii) the distance of driving; (iii) the driving experience; and (iv) the need for driving for maintaining his/her livelihood; and (iv) the instant disposition is deemed to have

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 disposition 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 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 requirements for exclusion.” One of the requirements for exclusion from the mitigation is that “in the event that a person drives under the influence of alcohol exceeds 0.12%, he/she has a history of drinking driving during the past five years.”

The above criteria for revocation of license are reasonable to recognize that such criteria are significantly unfair.