First, the plaintiffs made a statement of their opinion.

We also refuted the city's other claims, stating that the defects in the park closure ordinance that it had asserted at the previous hearing had been corrected and that the ordinance is now valid.

In particular, in response to the city's argument that the defects in the ordinance have been cured and that it is still valid, the court stated, "We will clarify, based on the facts, the injustice and maliciousness of the city's ignoring the judicial decision and forcing the continuation of recruitment work based on the ordinance, claiming that the ordinance in question is still valid." In other words, based on the facts confirmed in the previous trial and the content of the judgment, the court clearly showed that even if the city council rejected the ordinance repealing the ordinance in December 2010, the cure was not recognized in the previous trial, and that the defect is not cured by the rejection of the petition.

The court also reiterated that the city's infringements are contrary to the principle of administrative enforcement by law, are clearly illegal, and deprive people of equal access to public daycare centers, which are public facilities, and the right to choose a daycare center. The court also pointed out that, despite some plaintiffs applying to use daycare centers, there are cases where the city has not yet denied admission even three months after the application, as was the case with the plaintiffs in the previous lawsuit. (The previous lawsuit ruling overturned the city's denial of admission.)

The plaintiffs first made a statement, directly stating that they were unable to return to work because the city had not resumed recruitment based on the previous lawsuit ruling. (Attachment 20250605 Statement D)

The City responded to the Plaintiff's brief (1) submitted at the previous hearing and to the questions asked at the previous hearing (Attachment 20250605 Defendant's Brief (1)).

One particularly noteworthy and surprising point is that while the mayor acknowledges that there were flaws in the decision (the current mayor was elected after criticizing the previous mayor's decision), he claims that the flaws were not obvious and were minor, and that they have now been corrected.
The reason given for this cure is that the assembly rejected a bill to repeal the school closure ordinance in December 2022 and also rejected a petition to resume recruitment, which means that the assembly's will was in favor of the school closure and the defect has been cured.

The city also denied the plaintiffs' legal rights, such as the right to equal use of public facilities and the right to choose a daycare center, and provided additional explanations that the city has not committed any infringements against the plaintiffs and regarding the daycare worker system.

The plaintiffs will next respond to this.

First, the plaintiffs, who had won the previous lawsuit, gave a statement explaining why they decided to sue the city again and the dire situation the children are currently in.

The defendant (the city) has submitted a response to the additional parts of the plaintiff's complaint. (Attachment 20250328: Response)

The plaintiffs countered the city's written response submitted at the previous hearing (Attachment 20250325 Briefing (1)). The brief argued, based on the city's responses to the assembly and interactions with citizens and parents, that the city's response was not based on the previous court ruling, as claimed, nor was it the result of extensive policy considerations. The plaintiffs argued that, despite the previous court ruling requiring the city to immediately resume recruitment, the city had not even attempted to consider whether it was possible to resume recruitment.

We also provided a counterargument based on the actual childcare situation regarding the issues with the childcare worker system that the city cited as the reason for not being able to resume recruitment, and furthermore, we supplemented our argument regarding the illegality and infringement of rights of the city's enforcement of the ordinance to close childcare facilities as valid.

Finally, the plaintiff's lawyer asked the city whether it accepted that the discretionary decision made in the previous judgment was illegal and that the park closure ordinance, which was based on illegal procedures, was invalid, and the city agreed to respond by the next hearing.

At the first oral argument, two plaintiffs made statements (see attached document).
The city has submitted a response to the plaintiff market, stating that it will fight the case to the fullest.

The plaintiffs who won the previous lawsuit have joined the plaintiffs. They had been in discussions with the city, asking for the city to reopen the nursery and improve the situation where they were forced to nurse children with no other children in their grade, but they were unable to receive a response from the city regarding improvements, so they have joined the lawsuit. This brings the total number of plaintiffs to 12 people from 7 households.