Thank you for your continued support. We would like to inform you of the deadline on November 5th as follows.

[Date] 13th oral argument proceedings

1 Date and time: 16:30, Monday, November 5, 2024

2. Tokyo District Court, Civil Division 2, Bd Section

3. Litigation Proceedings

(1) Statements made and documentary evidence examined

(Plaintiff) Preparatory brief (11), evidence offer, Exhibits C89-93 (originals 92 and 93)

(Defendant) None

(2) Exchanges on deadlines

- The court confirmed that the plaintiff would present the preparatory document (11) and conducted documentary examination.

・The Plaintiffs applied for the testimony of the Ward Councilman Koeda as a new testimony application. The Defendant responded that this was unnecessary. They stated that they had already made every argument that the answers were false, and that although the impact on the Ward Council was significant, Assemblyman Koeda had voted against, so their impression was merely abstract. They also stated that they had nothing to add to the preparatory document (11) as it was the Plaintiffs' opinion and was not subject to approval or denial.

・In response, the plaintiffs stated that they would like to be given the opportunity to testify against the two officials, especially Section Chief Sugai, for the false statements, as an opportunity to prove that they were false. Regarding Councilman Koeda, they stated that if the false statements had not been made in the first place, the vote itself may not have taken place, and that they need to prove the impact that he had on the deliberations. Furthermore, regarding Preparatory Document (11), they stated that Document 1 should clarify whether or not they will dispute the fact that roads can be developed without cutting down roadside trees.

In response, the defendant stated that while it was not without dispute, any further admissions or denials would result in the same thing happening again, and therefore the defendant would not make any further admissions or denials.

In addition, the plaintiff side pointed to the photography report and figures 14 and 15 of the written opinion (Exhibit C87) in relation to the allegation in the preparatory document (11) 1 and said that if the ward proposal is left unchanged, it will be difficult to ensure the 2 meter clearance, but it will be possible to develop the road if no tree belt is provided, and requested clarification of the specific issues that are the subject of approval or disapproval.

In response, the defendants stated that this was a lawsuit filed by residents, and that the trial was about the illegality of financial accounting practices, and that the policy debate should not take place. The plaintiffs stated that they were pointing out that the defendants' response that they could not do what they could actually do was false, and that they were not discussing the merits or demerits of the policy. However, the defendants stated that they believed that it was a leap in logic to say that the existing street trees in their current positions would prevent the ward from carrying out the maintenance that it was considering at its discretion.

The court adjourned for the time being to discuss the proceedings.

After the trial resumed, all applications for court attestation were rejected as they were deemed unnecessary.

- Regarding the preparatory document (11), it has been decided that the matters to be contested will be left in the minutes.

- The court concluded the arguments and set the date for announcing the verdict as 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 6th.

4. Next hearing date

The verdict will be heard on Thursday, February 6th, 2025 at 2pm in Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court.

Thank you for your continued support. We would like to inform you of the deadline of October 1st as follows.

Date and time: Tuesday , October 1, 2024, 11:30 a.m.

Court Tokyo District Court Civil Division 2 B d Section

(1) Statements and documentary evidence examined

(Plaintiff) Preparatory document (9), Preparatory document (10), Offer of Evidence, Exhibits Koh C86-88

(Defendant) Preparatory document (6)

(2) Exchanges at deadlines

Court: Regarding the second point on page 2 of the plaintiff's preparatory brief (9), the original complaint in the first case still contained allegations of collusive false representation and erroneous expression of intent. Is it correct to say that these allegations, which have been consolidated into the present preparatory brief, have been withdrawn?

Plaintiff: That's fine.

Court: Is it correct to say that the "property" referred to in the Plaintiff's Preparatory Brief (9) is the ginkgo tree?

Plaintiff: Please understand that.

Plaintiff: On page 4 of the defendant's preparatory brief (6), the defendant claims that the conditions are different from the premise. I think the difference is whether there is a bicycle-only road (whether pedestrians and bicycles are not separated). Does it mean that separating pedestrians and bicycles is a violation of the law?

Defendant: It is not a violation of the law. It is different from the prerequisites of the guidelines. It is a decision made within the broad discretion of the ward.

Plaintiff: So there are guidelines?

The Court: How does that relate to this case?

Plaintiff: I do not believe that the existence of a bicycle-only road is a prerequisite.

Defendant: Separating bicycle lanes is a prerequisite. The ward has adopted that policy.

Plaintiff: When the ward proposed the project to the assembly, was the establishment of a bicycle-only road a prerequisite? Exhibit B-2 does not state that the purpose of the project in question was to separate the bicycle path from the sidewalk.

Defendant: It is a matter of financial accounting practices, not an issue of overall policy.

Plaintiff: If the ward says that everything is a prerequisite, does that mean everything is a prerequisite? If so, then cutting down the ginkgo trees is a prerequisite, and that's the end of it. In Exhibit B-3, there is a story about resolving the issue of sidewalks and bicycles being mixed. However, creating a bicycle-only road is not the only solution.

Court: What would you like to do as the plaintiff?

Plaintiff: I would like to sort this out and submit a written document. I will submit it in about three weeks.

Court: I think it is linked to the need for questioning, so I will allow the plaintiff to submit a written statement. As of today, I have reserved the decision on whether to accept the witness testimony.

Schedule

The plaintiffs are scheduled to submit preparatory briefs by October 22, 2024.

Next Date

Tuesday, November 5, 2024, 16:30 ~ Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 703

> Details of the date

The court confirmed that Plaintiff’s Preparatory Brief (7) is a document regarding the temporary suspension of construction work, and that Preparatory Brief (8) is a rebuttal to Defendant’s Preparatory Brief (4) that was previously submitted.

No documents have been submitted by the defendant.

The court confirmed with the plaintiff whether it was acceptable to withdraw the claim regarding the ward mayor’s breach of his duty to command and supervise, as stated in the plaintiff’s preparatory brief (8) on page 3 under the heading “(1) Claim regarding breach of duty to command and supervise,” and we responded that this was acceptable.

・Furthermore, the court stated that the allegations regarding the claim for the first case, p. 2, paragraph 2, were the same as those of the defendant, and asked the plaintiff's attorney to clarify whether the allegations were that the contract was illegal or invalid. The plaintiff's attorney stated that, since no expenditures have been made on the remaining amount at present, if the contract is found to be illegal, it would be impossible to make any further expenditures based on the illegal financial accounting practices. However, the court stated that, since the defendant had already made the contract itself, it was being considered that in order to stop the expenditure order, it would be necessary to make it invalid, not just illegal. Furthermore, the court stated that it considered the relationship with the Supreme Court rulings of 2008 and 2013 to be an issue.

In response, the plaintiff's attorney stated that he would reorganize his case.

- The court confirmed whether it was acceptable to understand that the first and second lawsuits were mutually invoking each other's claims, and we stated that this was acceptable.

- The court stated to the plaintiff's attorney that the plaintiff is claiming that the contract itself is illegal and invalid, but that in getting to that point, items such as invalid resolutions, serious procedural flaws, and unnecessary expenditures have been mentioned, but that they must ultimately be linked to the financial accounting illegality, and that since all of the claims are scattered, the court would like the plaintiff to provide a document of just two or three pages that concisely outlines the gist of each of the claims, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, and the plaintiff's attorney decided to comply with this.

-Furthermore, the court asked the plaintiff's attorney to clarify the content of "property" and "management" in paragraph 3 of the claim, and the plaintiff's attorney agreed to this.

・The court stated that the litigation had progressed to a certain stage, and asked both sides about their future plans for presenting their arguments. Our side stated that we would submit an opinion letter from an expert on urban development and the accompanying arguments, and that we were considering requesting testimony from the plaintiff himself and the defendant's manager, who participated in the dialogue. The court decided to wait for the submission of the opinion letter and preparatory documents, and to confirm at the next hearing whether the defendant had any counterarguments against them, and whether the testimony request would be accepted.

> Scheduled

-The plaintiff plans to submit a statement of opinion, written argument, and request for testimony by Monday, September 2, 2024.

The statement is due to be submitted by September 24th.

> Next date

Tuesday, October 1, 2024, 11:30 a.m. Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 703

The ninth oral argument proceedings were held on May 14th, and we would like to report the following.

- The composition of the court has changed, so the arguments have been renewed (a formality). The presiding judge has not been replaced.

・The statement regarding the document we submitted yesterday was reserved. The reason given by the court was that "We did not originally ask the plaintiff to do anything, and since we received it yesterday at the last minute, we will reserve the statement for the time being. There are also doubts as to the extent to which it is related to the subject matter of this lawsuit and the subject of the trial."

・The plaintiff side will submit a written document by the next hearing date. The court has asked that the document include the following:

> The first item in the defendant's preparatory brief (4) is the defendant's argument in response to the plaintiff's argument. It may be self-evident to the plaintiff, but I would like to know whether the defendant's summary of the first item, "The plaintiff's argument is this," is correct, and whether the defendant's argument is confirmed point by point.

> I would like the plaintiff to make a statement on each of the three claims. It has also been pointed out that there are two questionable points, so I would like to know whether the plaintiff will make any further claims.

・The court said, "This lawsuit is an objective lawsuit between residents, and it concerns financial and accounting actions, so please consider it separately from the provisional disposition case itself." We replied, "We believe that the contents are related. Regarding the temporary suspension of construction in paragraph 3 of the purpose of the claim in the second case, we believe that the objective facts of the suspension of construction due to the guidelines are at issue. We believe that the situation is currently such that it cannot be carried out, but we wrote the plaintiff's preparatory document (7) with the intention of asking for an explanation as to why the requirements for temporary suspension in the guidelines do not apply (the defendant is writing it from his/her own perspective). We would like the defendant to respond." The court said that it will not ask the defendant to respond at this time, but that "If you can clarify in the next document submitted by the plaintiff that the contents stated in the plaintiff's preparatory document (7) are related to paragraph 3 of the purpose of the claim, the court will make a decision based on that."

The next hearing will be held on Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 703 of the Tokyo District Court. We appreciate your continued support.