We would like to report that the ninth oral argument hearing in the deep-sea linear motor train lawsuit was held.

Date and Time: July 3, 2026, 3:00 PM to 3:30 PM

Location: Courtroom 103, Tokyo District Court

Judges: Presiding Judge Mizuho Ibi, Judge Yugo Ishigami, Judge Ryo Yamamura (Civil Division 2, Section Bc)

Attendance: 6 plaintiffs, 2 plaintiff attorneys, 5 defendant attorneys

Mother hearing: Approximately 30 people

[Future plans]

The next hearing will be on October 1, 2026, at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 103.

[Contents of the 9th Oral Argument Hearing]

1. Submission of each document

Between the previous due date and the current due date,

The plaintiff submitted the fifth preparatory document.

The defendant submitted preparatory brief (5), Exhibits B24 and B25.

I submitted it.

2. Summary of the exchanges on this date

(1) Statements and examination of evidence in the documents submitted this time

The plaintiff presented their fifth preparatory brief, and the defendant presented their preparatory brief (5), after which the evidence Exhibits B24 and B25 were examined.

The plaintiff had not planned to submit a written statement, but since they submitted their fifth written statement, they provided supplementary explanations. In the defendant's written statement (3), the defendant argues that the accident could have been prevented with proper construction due to "construction issues." However, a major accident occurred in Shinagawa. When the plaintiff pointed out that the construction was carried out without conducting a boring survey, and that it could be inferred that proper construction was not carried out, the defendant simply repeated their previous arguments. The plaintiff requested an explanation from the defendant regarding this point, asking them to clarify their position. The plaintiff argued that it is either JR Tokai did not carry out proper construction, or JR Tokai carried out proper construction but the accident still occurred, and that the discussion cannot proceed unless their position is clarified.

The court instructed the defendant to provide counterarguments, including those on points for which clarification was requested, and the plaintiff to provide counterarguments to the defendant's documents as necessary, focusing on aspects that are not repetitive.

(2) Future progress

The court asked both parties about their plans for presenting evidence in the future.

The plaintiff responded that since the issues in dispute have not yet been determined, the proceedings will proceed once they are finalized. However, one of the issues at stake is the human right to a peaceful life, and as proof of this, they plan to submit opinions from constitutional law scholars or administrative law scholars, and they also plan to submit additional evidence regarding the facts.

Next time, we will discuss the counterarguments and evidence presented in the documents from both sides, starting from the time after that.

April 24, 2026, 15:00 to 15:30

Location: Courtroom 103, Tokyo District Court

Judges: Presiding Judge Mizuho Ibi, Judge Yugo Ishigami, Judge Ryo Yamamura (Civil Division 2, Section Bc)

Attendance: 6 plaintiffs, 4 plaintiff attorneys, 4 defendant attorneys

Attendees: Approximately 60 people

[Future plans]

The next hearing will be held on July 3, 2026, at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 103.

[Contents of the 8th Oral Argument Hearing]

1. Renewal of the argument

The court's structure has changed, so the arguments have been updated.

(Judge Ikuko Henmi has been replaced by Judge Ryo Yamamura.)

1. Submission of each document

Between the previous due date and the current due date,

The plaintiff submitted the complaint for the mandatory injunction lawsuit filed in conjunction with the annulment lawsuit, the motion to amend the complaint, and Exhibits 100 to 102.

The defendant submitted preparatory brief (4), Exhibits B22 and B23.

I submitted it.

2. Summary of the exchanges on this date

(1) Statements and examination of evidence in the documents submitted this time

The plaintiff corrected the description of "Article 16, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act" on page 4, Section 1, "Introduction," of the complaint for the additional merger motion, to "Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act," and submitted the complaint and the motion for amendment of the complaint.

The defendant submitted a written statement (4).

Exhibits A100 through A102 and B22 and B23 were examined.

The plaintiff's attorney also provided an explanation regarding the contents of the complaint and the motion to amend the complaint.

(2) Planned next argument

The defendant stated that they plan to submit a response to the complaint and the motion to amend the complaint by June 19, and will present all their arguments at that time.

The court stated that it would confirm with the plaintiff at the next hearing how they would present their evidence.

The plaintiff has decided to submit its admissions and counterarguments regarding the defendant's brief (4) submitted this time and the answer to be submitted next time at the following hearing.

3. Next due date

The defendant's counterarguments to the plaintiff's complaint and the motion for amendment of the complaint had to be submitted by June 19, 2026.

Following that, the next meeting date was set for July 3, 2026, at 3:00 PM.

Date and time: January 27th (Tue) 15:00

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103

1. Update of the oral argument

There have been updates to the arguments as the composition of the court has changed.

(Judge Yukio Shinada was replaced by Judge Mizuho Ibi.)

2. Submission of each document

Between the previous due date and this due date,

The plaintiff has filed preparatory documents (4), Exhibits Ko 85 to 99.

has been submitted.

3. Summary of exchanges held on this date

(1) Statements and evidence submitted this time

The plaintiff presented preparatory documents (4) and Exhibits 85 to 99 were examined as evidence.

The plaintiff's attorney also provided an explanation of the contents of the preparatory document (4).

(2) Next claim schedule

Defendant has stated that it will file a response to Plaintiff's Brief (4) by March 31st.

The plaintiff stated that before the defendant's rebuttal on March 31, he planned to file a lawsuit to require the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism to revoke the approval in accordance with Article 29 of the Deep Sea Act, in conjunction with this lawsuit.

4. Next hearing date

Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Brief (4) has until March 31, 2026.

In addition, the plaintiff filed a consolidated mandatory lawsuit before the defendant submitted a response.

In response, the next hearing date was set for April 24, 2026 at 3:00 p.m.

Date and time: Friday, October 10th, from 11:00

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103

This time, the government made claims in its preparatory documents that directly contradicted those of the residents.

"Even if we take into account the fact that a sinkhole occurred during underground construction work in a residential area using a shield machine (excavator),

"The construction itself cannot be said to be dangerous," he said.

Holes appear in the ground where residents live, causing loss of life, body, and property.

"It cannot be said that there is any imminent or concrete real danger."

"It can be prevented from occurring if proper enforcement is carried out according to the difficulty of the ground conditions."

They have made such empty claims and denied any infringement of the residents' right to live peacefully.

We further refute this unfortunate assertion by a country that should be protecting the safety of its citizens.

Next time, the head of the defense team, Shima Akihiro, will summarize the rebuttal in a PowerPoint presentation and explain it in detail.

The seventh oral argument will be held on Tuesday, January 27th next year from 1pm. We hope that many people will attend.

Date and time: July 18th (Friday) 1:30pm

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103

Attorney Shima presented the plaintiff's case.

There is a significant lack of capacity, with frequent accidents occurring in various places, construction delays, and rising costs.

The plaintiffs argued that the government's approval was wrong.

The defendant made its decision based on the materials provided by the JR Association at the time of approval, so there is no defect.

They revealed an irresponsible attitude by saying, "Any unexpected events that occur after approval are irrelevant."

A report meeting was held in the First Conference Room of the House of Representatives Second Members' Building.

After the defense team explained the trial,

Participants asked questions and offered their opinions, and lively discussions took place between the defense team and the plaintiffs.

Spreading the right to a peaceful life throughout society is

He shared with the participants the recognition that this issue is common to all issues.

Thank you to everyone who attended and attended the meeting.

....................................................................................................

Next session: 6th oral argument

Friday, October 10th, Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103, 11:00 AM

Reporting meeting: House of Representatives Second Members' Building, Second Meeting Room, 12:30-14:30

Will the defendant respond to the plaintiff's request for clarification regarding the "right to a peaceful life"? Or will it not?

Please pay attention.

I would be grateful if many people would come and support us.

The hearing took place in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court from 2:00 p.m. on June 2nd for 30 minutes.

Last time, the plaintiff's brief was about 15 minutes long, using PowerPoint presentations, but this time the defendant's brief was presented, during which they argued that the plaintiff's right to a peaceful life was abstract and unclear. The plaintiff responded by pointing out that, despite having specifically explained in previous exchanges that the right is "the benefit of living without the anxiety or fear of losing one's life, body, or property, such as when a hole suddenly appears in the ground one uses in daily life," the claim was deemed "abstract and unclear," meaning that the plaintiff would have to repeat the same mistake again. The defendant responded by saying that the claim lacked sufficient specificity to serve as a judicial standard.

In response to the plaintiff's point that meaningless repetition should be avoided, the court suggested that they consider requesting clarification next time.

The court instructed the plaintiff to make a full rebuttal to the claims before the merits from the next hearing onwards, and the plaintiff agreed.

The court also asked questions about the plaintiff's long-term plans for progress and proof of claims.

The plaintiff responded that it plans to make detailed arguments and evidence regarding the grounds for cancellation where the determination of facts is an issue, and that it is considering making arguments and evidence regarding the violation of the Constitution, including an opinion from an academic.

Usually, defendant statements are over in a flash with almost no exchanges in court, but on this day, plaintiff's attorney, Akihiro Shima, asked powerful questions that highlighted the defendant's dishonesty, making the oral argument extremely thrilling. Many in the audience were probably astonished by the government's response, which consisted of evasive or repetitive statements (canned phrases?).

Next hearing: July 18, 2025, 1:30 PM - Courtroom 103

At the next hearing, Attorney Akihiro Shima will use PowerPoint to present the plaintiffs' arguments. We ask that as many people as possible attend the hearing to demonstrate the high level of interest.

At the report meeting, journalist Yasuo Mishima gave a talk after showing a documentary video about the severe damage suffered by residents in and around the area directly above the excavation of the Outer Ring Road tunnel in Chofu City, Tokyo, where a sinkhole occurred due to construction work deeper than 40 meters, which is permitted under the same deep tunnel law as the Linear Shinkansen.

Date and time: Monday, February 17th, 2:00 PM

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103

Judges: Presiding Judge Yukio Shinada, Judge Yugo Ishigami, and Judge Haruhisa Okubo (Civil Division 2, Bc Section)

Attendance: 7 plaintiffs, 4 plaintiff attorneys, 4 defendant attorneys

1. Update of the oral argument

There have been updates to the arguments as the composition of the court has changed.

(When we inquired with the court, we were told that the right-hand associate seat will be replaced this time only, and that Judge Henmi Ikuko will return to her seat from the next hearing onwards.)

2. Submission of each document

Between the previous due date and this due date,

The plaintiff filed brief (2) (a rebuttal to defendant's brief (1)), Exhibits 65-1 to 65-4, Exhibits 66 to 77.

has been submitted.

3. Summary of exchanges held on this date

The plaintiff has submitted brief (2).

Evidence examination was conducted on Exhibits 65-1 to 65-4, which had been put on hold last time, and Exhibits 66 to 77, which were submitted today.

The plaintiff's attorney gave a 15-minute explanation of the contents of the preparatory document (2) using PowerPoint.

In response to the government's argument that "the circumstances at the time the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism granted approval should be the standard for determining whether something is legal or illegal," the plaintiff's attorney argued that "the possibility of problems occurring was latent at the time of approval and was fully predictable. This shows that the preliminary investigation was sloppy and there was a lack of construction management ability."

The plaintiffs argued that the construction work would "violate their (constitutional) right to a peaceful life," while the government said that "the content is abstract and unclear." Attorney Shima countered, arguing that it was clear that a sinkhole accident would cause serious damage to the ground, and that "causing residents to feel anxious is itself a violation of their right to a peaceful life."

The defendant pointed out that he had heard that he would refute the pre-trial defense at the previous hearing, but that this was not stated in his brief (2). The plaintiff stated that he had no idea that he would be preparing a rebuttal to the pre-trial defense. The court shared the same view as the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also reiterated his request that the defendants' documents refute the point they had made in their written submissions that the need for the Linear Shinkansen is based on the time frame, namely that the opening of the Linear Shinkansen is a long way off, as this point had not been mentioned in the defendants' written submissions.

As for what comes next, the defendants said they will file their written rebuttal by May 19th.

So the court

Next hearing: June 2, 2025, 2:00 PM

The deadline for defendant's written rebuttal was May 19th of the same year.

It was decided that:

Date and time: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 15:00-15:30

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103

Judges: Presiding Judge Yukio Shinada, Judge Ikuko Henmi, Judge Haruhisa Okubo (Civil Division 2, Bc Section)

Attendance: 7 plaintiffs, 4 plaintiff attorneys, 4 defendant attorneys

Spectators: 36

[Future plans]

The next hearing will be held on Monday, February 17, 2025 from 2:00 PM in Courtroom 103.

[Contents of the 2nd Oral Argument Date]

1. Submission of each document

Between the previous due date and this due date,

The plaintiff submitted the preparatory brief (1) (Response to the request for clarification in the reply), Exhibits 62-1 to 64-2,

The defendant submitted Preparatory Brief (1) and Exhibits 3 to 19.

In addition, today the plaintiff submitted Exhibits 65-1 to 65-4, but the examination will be postponed until the next time.

2. Summary of the exchanges held on this date

The plaintiff submitted brief (1) and the defendant submitted brief (1).

Evidence examination was conducted on Exhibits 62-1 to 64-2 and Exhibits 3 to 19.

Plaintiff's attorney Shima: I will refute your argument next time, but I would like to confirm three points.

① Defendant's preparatory brief (1) page 14 (c). Page 27 of the complaint is an argument regarding the period. Regarding the necessity for public interest, the period until the start of use becomes an issue. In Exhibit 2, it is written that if the start date of use is set too far in the future, the public interest purpose will be denied. It says "will be contested," but I would like to confirm whether the intention is to contest whether it should be taken into consideration at all.

② Page 36 of the complaint. Regarding the scope of discretion of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. On page 53 of the defendant's brief (1), it is written that it is difficult to understand that there is discretion in determining the requirements of Article 16 of the Deep Sea Act, and that there is no discretion. In contrast, on page 55 of the same brief, it is written that it is left to the reasonable discretion of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. The gist of it is written as discretion in determining the requirements, but is it an argument that there is no discretion in determining the requirements, but there is broad discretion in determining the effects? Is it that there is no discretion in determining the requirements, but there is broad discretion in determining the effects?

3) On page 55 of the defendant's brief (1), it says "an original opinion based on speculation," but this refers to pages 28-31 of the complaint. Pages 28-31 of the same brief allege various facts. Which points should be refuted, and to what extent?

There are many other things, but they don't fit together as a whole. They need to be organized.

Defendant: ① Article 16, item 3 of the Deep Sea Act. The defendant's brief (1) provides an appropriate rebuttal on pages 53 and following.

② Issues with each item of Article 16 of the Deep Sea Act. The issue of item 1 is that there is no discretion in requirements. Items 3 and 4 claim that there is discretion in requirements. There is no discussion of discretion in effects.

3) The claim that the claims on pages 53-54 are based on speculation.

Plaintiff: You are basing your argument on the same materials, but do you not refute the point that the period is important when it comes to conformity with public interest purposes?

Defendant: If we understand that the plaintiff's argument is based on the fact that things change from moment to moment based on changes in the times, then it is based on speculation and there is no need to refute it.

Plaintiff: The plaintiff argues that at the time of judgment, there may be cases where the public interest necessity is denied on the grounds that the use of the deep underground will be far into the future, as stated in Exhibit B2. Does the defendant mean that they will not take these arguments into consideration because they are all based on a time after the judgment?

Court: I think it would be good for the plaintiff to state in his next brief, including the points that do not match.

Defendant: We do not dispute the contents of Exhibit 2 itself, so you may make your arguments based on that premise.

Court: Can we not go into detail on the transcript?

Plaintiff: Good

Court: In the answer, there were objections to the content of this case before the merits. What is the plaintiff's plan for rebuttal going forward?

Plaintiff: For example, when it comes to public interest necessity, you have to make factual arguments, which in itself would require a considerable amount of rebuttal.

The issues will be narrowed down a bit more, and until then it is possible to refute the whole thing, but if we do so, there will be some parts that are disjointed and sloppy, as in this case.

The issue is largely divided into whether the requirements of the Deep Sea Act are met and whether it is unconstitutional, so I think it would be easier if they were separated.

The Court: If it were to be divided into two sessions, how much preparation time would there be? If it were to be both sessions?

Plaintiff: If we split it in half, I think we can get it out by the end of the year. If we split it in half, it should be around the end of January.

Plaintiff: Unforeseen circumstances have arisen in this era. What happened? Taking this into consideration, the Deep Sea Use Authorization under Article 29 of the Deep Sea Act should be revoked. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the Act are true. It can be revoked for circumstances that arise after the decision is made. I believe that we need to consider making revocation mandatory. I will let you know that we are considering this.

Court: Due to the availability of Courtroom 103, I think it would be better to have both sides make their arguments and hold a hearing on that date.

The next scheduled hearing will be the plaintiff's rebuttal statement, but would you like to hear an oral explanation of the contents of your preparatory documents?

Plaintiff: I strongly hope so.

Court: Please submit the document two weeks in advance. In comparison with the complaint, the statement should be about 10 minutes long.

Next meeting: Monday, February 17th, 2:00 PM

Written rebuttals are due February 3rd. PowerPoint slides are due February 10th.

＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊〜＊｜』

Thank you to everyone who came to listen.

We hope that many of you will attend the next session as well.

We are pleased to report that the first oral argument hearing in the Deepwater Linear lawsuit has been held.

Date and time: July 30, 2024 14:00-14:30

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103

Judges: Presiding Judge Yukio Shinada, Judge Ikuko Henmi, and Judge Haruhisa Okubo (Civil Division 2, Bc Section)

Attendance: 11 plaintiffs, 3 plaintiff attorneys, 3 defendant attorneys

(Audience: 60 people)

【Future plans】

The next hearing will be held on October 23, 2024 from 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 103.

[Contents of the 1st oral argument date]

1. Submission of documents

Between the previous hearing and this one, the plaintiff submitted a complaint and a motion to amend the complaint, Exhibits A-1 to A-61-3, and the defendant submitted an answer, Exhibits B-1-1 to B-1-2.

2. Summary of exchanges held at this meeting

The plaintiff filed a complaint and an amended complaint, and the defendant filed an answer.

Evidence examination was conducted on Exhibits 1 to 61-3 and Exhibits 1-1 to 1-2.

3. Statement of opinion

At this hearing, plaintiff Yukiko Hoshina and head of the defense team, lawyer Akihiro Shima, made statements.

[Reporting Session] 15:00-17:00

Venue: House of Representatives Second Members' Building, First Meeting Room

Attendees: Attorneys: Akihiro Shima, Yu Adachi, Nobuko Terada Plaintiffs: 10 people

Participants: 60

1. Professor Adachi explains using the PowerPoint presentation used by Attorney Shima in his statement

・Outline of the lawsuit ・What is the Deep Depth Law? ・Purpose and significance of this lawsuit ・Grounds for cancellation ・Unconstitutionality of the law ・Unconstitutional application

Reference: PowerPoint PDF (uploaded as litigation materials)

2. A word from the plaintiff who made the statement

3. Comments from Diet members

4. Speeches from participants

5. Question and Answer Session

6. Opening remarks from the head of the plaintiffs

7. Closing

Reference * 7/30 Tokyo Shimbun article https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/343977

YouTube: https://youtu.be/kN0i57ETlNM