For Tokyo District Court Hatiouji Branch Civil Department

Indication of Litigant
As written in following annexation "List of Litigant"

The case of compensatory damages.

Amount of settlement 1,950,000 yen

Amount of filing fee 15,600 yen

Mailing address

107-0052 Tokyo akasaka 2-14-13-5F Minato Lawyer Tel(3585)2331 Fax(3585)2330

Plaintiff's substitute
Lawyer Ooguti Akihiko

The intention of the request.

1 The defendant should give a letter of apology to the plaintiff which contains the following annexation "Letter of Apology".

2 The defendant, Oki Electronics Company, should pay 1 million yen plus 5% annual interest retroactively from the date of settlement for this case to June 27th 2002.

3 The court fees will also be paid by the defendant.

The reason of the request.

1 List of Litigant

1 Plaintiff

(1) The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant's company Oki Electronics Company. He was fired in June of 1981 by the accuser because he refused an unfair transfer order.
Since then, he has continued struggling to ask for the improvement of unfair dismissal and labor control policy that violates human rights.

(2) Since 1987, he joined the stock holders meeting and pointed out the company's management principles, specifically concerning labor control policy.

(3) Also, in present-day Japan, his activities which criticize similar cases which occurred at Oki Electronics company have been approved.
And his lectures containing singing have been approved by not only the labor unions, civilian activities of human rights or peace, but also public schools and municipal board of education.

(4) Many people, from all over Japan, who empathize with him have joined in his struggle in front of the gate every day and support him and communicate each other.
Among them is a politician, Mr Kamei Sizuka, also who is a candidate for Japanese prime minister.

2 The defendant OKI Electric Company

The defendant, OKI Electric Company, is the company whose headquarters address is as
written in top of this document. They mainly produce electric communication device.

2 Right of the plaintiff

1 Progress of this case(No 1 The relationship between plaintiff and defender)

The relationship between plaintiff and defender

(1) The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant's company. In June of 1981 the plaintiff was fired by defendant's company because the plaintiff refused a transfer order which was given in revenge to plaintiff 's activity's in regards to criticism on labor control policy by running in the labor union election.

(2) Immediately following the firing the plaintiff brought the case to the court but in1992 the plaintiff lost in the Supreme court.
(The decision of the court stated that the firing wasn't illegal, however, it did not admit that there weren't

(3)Until now the plaintiff continues his struggle in front of the defendant's company gate insisting and declaring that the problem is unresolved by the unfair decision of the court.
From 1987 the plaintiff has joined the defendant company's General Stockholder's meeting and has pointed out the discrimination at the defendant's workplace. He continues in his efforts against the violation of human rights, and asks for improvements in the situation of the workplace.

2 Progress of this case.(No2 the insistence of plaintiff in Stockholder's General meeting.)

The insistence of the plaintiff including the existence and improvement in violations of human right which includes wage discrimination and the taking away of tasks or responsibilities that occur in the defendant's work place.

The defendant's company has been continuing with its unfair labor control policy by taking away tasks or responsibilities from workers who criticize the company's unfair labor control policy.

Such improvements are the responsibility of the company by the morals of society.
The Plaintiff has example that it's profitable for the company because the morals of the employees and enthusiasm will rise up.

The proposal of the plaintiff for fair management of General Stockholder's meeting of defendant's company.

The plaintiff has been recommending that the work environment at the defendant company be improved.

(1) Assurance of Speech

(a) Improving the rights of the worker is paramount for the management of a company not only because these rights are related to worker morale but also because the company has a social responsibility to implement these rights. Thus, the rights of the worker is an important issue that must be discussed at shareholder meetings.

(b) Even though the plaintiff and fellow shareholders gave examples of the human rights violations that they had witnessed at the defendant company, board members refused to discuss the matter, as it was not the theme of the meeting.

(c) For the past 17 years the plaintiff has attended every annual shareholder meeting, each time raising the issue of workers’ rights. However, each attempt to raise this issue has been made in vain, for the defendant company obstinately refuses to address this problem. Furthermore, at these annual meetings, many other share holders are not given the opportunity to ask questions, and share holders who are mobilized by the defendant company give motions to discontinue discussions prematurely in order to avoid issues that they do not want to discuss.

(d) "The mobilized stockholders " shouted "we agree!! " when the president read the bill.

They threaten other stockholders against making questions having serious discussions.

(e) Only the company used microphones, but stockholders couldn't..

(c,d, were improved because of plaintiff's strong protest.)

(2) Normal management of the meeting. Right of stockholders.

(a) Many stockholders have another company's stocks also.

Defendant company had been holding the meeting on "the concentrated day " intentionally.

It made impossible to join the defendant meeting for stockholders who join another company's meeting held on same day.

(b) Defendant had taken the vote by counting the heads of the stock holders stockholders who had plural stocks including plaintiff had attended.

(c) Defendant had taken the video, but they refuse stockholders to take the video or record, also they refused the plaintiff's demand to watch the video.

(d) The defendant had refused to show the list of stockholders.

(e) Defendant had refused to make copies of the recording of the meeting.

3 Unlawful act of this case.

(1) Plaintiff attended defendant stockholder's meeting on 2002 June 27th and proposed not to hold the meeting on " the concentrate day" and asked to take vote.

(2)The president Shinozuka declared that they invited police officers to stop the violence.

It was unreasonable because there was no violence by stockholders, but there was violence by company's security guard against stockholders.　　

(3) President Shinozuka answered " It is not the intention that the meeting has been held on the concentrate day " and refused to take vote.

Every one at the stockholders meeting, which is the highest organization to decides their mind, knew the president answered with a clear lie.

Plaintiff though that this answer showed the defendant is extremely dishonest attitude toward stock holders and a lack of mind for social justice.

(4) The president ordered their guards men to kick the plaintiff out.

(5) In that time plaintiff had an injury on his shoulder and was commuted to clinic.

In fear that some thing dangerous, plaintiff had brought a medical certificate the year prior to the year the defendant used violence against the plaintiff.

(6) However, the security guards continued using violence against the Plaintiff and kicked him out from the room.
At that time the guards twisted and picked him up by his arms, and shoulders so that he felt excruciating pain. So he couldn't move his arm and shoulders for a short while.


That violence made his shoulder worse, so he had to commute to the hospital for treatment until November of that year.

(7) And another stockholder were also kicked out.
One of them had his jacket torn by the violence.

(This stockholder brought the case to the court.)

(8) The plaintiff cried out in a loud voice that if police officer's were present they should stop the company's violence.
However they didn't intervene and just overlooked the incident.

(The plaintiff have brought police officers to court also)

3 The illegal activity of the defendant.
In that history, the defendant has a he responsibility to uphold the low.
The defendant's company, using violence, kicked out the stockholders who criticized the company's executive's unfair activity.
And through that the result was physical harm to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant's company harmed the Plaintiff's right as a human and his pride by treatment from the Sockeye, who had no benefit from the company's activities they threatened the company with issues unrelated to the company in order to take money from the company.

If we put a price on the damages received by the defendant, it must not lower than 1 million yen.

The defendant's company has the responsibility to pay for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff according to public law's number 709,710, and 715.

By the way, violence incurred by the security guards and the presence of the police officers at the request of the Defendant, harmed the Plaintiff's honor.

So that, in this case, not only a monetary claim, but a restoration of the situation that occurred before the incident must take place.

A statement of apology should be sent to the Plaintiff according to public laws #709, and 3723.

3 Conclusion

1 Therefore, the plaintiff asks.to the defendant company

(1) By public law 709, 723 to deliver a statement a apology to the plaintiff

(2) and by law 709,710 to pay plaintiff damages of 1 million plus 5% interest annually from June 27th 2002 until the damages have been paid,

Proof of case

Evidence #1 (report)(by Tanaka) The situation of the 2002 stockholder's meeting including picture written transcript of the recording.

Evidence #2 (The decision)(Urawa District Court) Human Rights Violation in OKI DENKI

Evidence #3 (Medical report)(Dr' Fuda Yosiyuki) Reort of physical injury sustained by plaintiff.

Evidence #4 (Document of demand)(Tanaka) To show the video of the stockholders meeting.

Evidence #5 (Document of reply)(OKI DENKI) The refusal of the above -mentioned request.

Evidence #6 (Document of demand)(Tanaka) To show the list of the stockholders

Evidence #7 (Document of reply)(OKI DENKI) The refusal of the above -mentioned request.

Attachment of Supporting Document

1 Copy of the Proof of Case.

2 Copy of the Registration of the Company.

3 The document commissioned by the lawyer pertaining to this case.

Litigant List

192-0942Tokyo hachiouji kuhugidacho 1214-1-707
Plaintiff : Tetsuro Tanaka

Mailing address

107-0052 Tokyo akasaka2-14-13-5F Minato Lawyer ｔｅｌ　(3585)2331ｆａｘ (3585)2330

Plaintiff's substitute
lawyer Ooguti Akihiko

105-0001 Tokyo toranomon 1-7-12
Defendant : Oki Electronics Company

President Shinoduka Katsumasa

"Letter of Apology"
We sincerely apologize to Tetsuro Tanaka for when he pointed out the bad points of our company's labor control policy and treatment of the workers with the use of discrimination.
And also asking us to improve the situation and for waking a point of our bad management of the stockholder's meeting, and how we didn't make a point of accepting such suggestions with sincerity.
Especially the stockholder's meeting that was held in June of 203 we didn't give Mr' Tanaka and other stockholders the chance to express their enthusiastic suggestions to our company and we kicked you out by use of our security guards using violence.
By that violence you have received much physical and mental damage and also damage to your personal property.
So we apologize with sincerity and we promise we will never allow the same situation to occur again.
We are going to try with great effort to improve the situation with the points that you made out.

２００３年１１月１８日
Nov 18th 2003
訴　　　　　　　　　　　　　状
Petition

東　京　地　方　裁　判　所 八 王 子 支 部 民 事 部 　 御 中
For Tokyo District Court Hatiouji Branch Civil Department

当事者の表示
Indication of Litigant

別紙目録記載のとおり
As written in following annexation "List of Litigant"

損害賠償等請求事件
The case of compensatory damages.

訴訟物の価額　金１，９５０，０００円也
Amount of settlement 1,950,000 yen

貼用印紙額 　　　金１５，６００円也
Amount of filing fee 15,600 yen

＜送達場所＞
Mailing address

〒１０７−００５２
東京都港区赤坂２丁目１４番１３号 シャトレ赤坂５階 　　　 港合同法律事務所 ｔｅｌ　（３５８５）２３３１ｆａｘ　（３５８５）２３３０

〒１０７−００５２ Tokyo akasaka 2-14-13-5F Minato Lawyer ｔｅｌ　（３５８５）２３３１ｆａｘ　（３５８５）２３３０

上記原告訴訟代理人
弁護士　　大　　口　　昭　　彦

Plaintiff's substitute
Lawyer Ooguti Akihiko

請　　　求　　　の　　　趣　　　旨
The intention of the request.

１　被告は原告に対して、別紙１記載の内容の謝罪文を交付せよ。
1 The defendant should give a letter of apology to the plaintiff which contains the following annexation "Letter of Apology".

２　被告沖電気工業株式会社は原告田中哲朗に対して、金１，０００，０００円
　　およびこれに対する２００２年６月２７日以降支払済みまで年５分の割合による金員を支払え。
2 The defendant, Oki Electronics Company, should pay 1 million yen plus 5% annual interest retroactively from the date of settlement for this case to June 27th 2002.

３　訴訟費用は、被告の負担とする。　
3 The court fees will also be paid by the defendant.

との判決、ならびに第２項について仮執行の宣言を求める。
I ask the court to those judgment and temporarily apply the second request above.

請　　　求　　　の　　　原　　　因
The reason of the request.

�T　当事者
I List of Litigant

１　原告
１　Plaintiff

　�@　 原告は、被告沖電気工業株式会社（以降「被告会社」という）の社員であったが、１９８１年６月、不当な配転命令を拒否したことを理由に解雇された。
　　　 以降一貫して、この解雇の不当性を訴え、更には、現在も続いている被告会社の人権を侵害する労務政策を改めることを求めて闘争を継続している者である。

�@　The　plaintiff　was　an　employee　of　the　defendant's　company　Oki　Electronics　Company．He　was fired in June of 1981 by the accuser because he refused an unfair transfer order.
Since then, he has continued struggling to ask for the improvement of unfair dismissal and labor control policy that violates human rights.

　�Aとりわけ１９８７年以降は、被告の定例株主総会に、株主として出席し、丁寧な論拠を準備して、会社の経営方針、とりわけ人事労働政策の誤謬を指摘し、その是正の実現達成することに努めてきている。

�A Since 1987, he joined the stock holders meeting and pointed out the company's management principles, specifically concerning labor control policy.
　
　�B　また現代日本には、被告会社と類似した人権侵害が多くの企業に存在している現実が存するが、そのことの持つ社会的問題性を鋭く指摘する原告の、講演ないし歌唱活動は広く支持され、講演依頼は労働組合、平和・人権問題を活動の目的とした市民団体からのみならず、公立学校、市教育委員会に亘り、その範囲は国内全域に及んでいる。

�BAlso, in present-day Japan, his activities which criticize similar cases which occurred at Oki Electronics company have been approved.
And his lectures containing singing have been approved by not only the labor unions, civilian activities of human rights or peace, but also public schools and municipal board of education.

　�C　また、原告が上記�`に関連して、被告会社門前において連日続けている抗議行動には、国内全域から原告に共感する多くの人が支援と交流の為に訪れ、その中には自由民主党前政調会長亀井静香衆議院議員すら含まれる。

�C　Many people, from all over Japan, who empathize with him have joined in his struggle in front of the gate every day　and support him and communicate each other.
Among them is a politician, Mr Kamei Sizuka, also who is a candidate for Japanese prime minister.

２　被告沖電気工業株式会社
2 The defendant OKI Electric Company

�`　被告沖電気工業株式会社は、肩書地に主たる事務所を置く株式会社で、電子通信装　　置の製造等を主たる目的とする者である。
The defendant, OKI Electric Company, is the company whose headquarters address is as
written in top of this document. They mainly produce electric communication device.

�U　原告の請求権
�U　Right of the plaintiff

１　本件不法行為に至る経過

（その１　原告と被告会社の関係）

1 Progress of this case

(No 1The relationship between plaintiff and defender)

　�`　原告と被告会社の関係
The relationship between plaintiff and defender

�@　原告は、被告の社員であったが、１９８１年６月原告が、被告会社の労務政策を、組合役員選挙に立候補して批判したことに対する報復として出されたところの、配転命令を拒否したという理由のみで、不当にも解雇された。

The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant's company. In June of 1981 the plaintiff was fired by defendant's company because the plaintiff refused a transfer order which was given in revenge to plaintiff 's activity's in regards to criticism on labor control policy by running in the labor union election.

�A　原告は直ちに民事訴訟を提起し、その不当性を争ったが、１９９２年最高裁に於て敗訴が確定した。（なお最高裁の支持した下級審の判決は、被告の原告に対する解雇が違法でないと認めたものではあるが、原告が主張する職場での人権侵害が存在しないとされたものではない。）

Immediately following the firing the plaintiff brought the case to the court but in1992 the plaintiff lost in the Supreme court.
(The decision of the court stated that the firing wasn't illegal, however, it did not admit that there weren't discrimination in the workplace which the plaintiff had pointed out.)

　�B　しかし原告は現在に至るまで、一貫して、「民事訴訟のこの不当な結果によっては、何ら問題は解決していない」ことを、社前での抗議行動等を通して、被告会社および同社の社員に対して直接に表明し続けてきている他、１９８７年からは、同社の株主総会に株主として出席し、被告会社の職場に於る人権侵害の存在を指摘し、その改善を訴える努力を続けてきた。

Until now the plaintiff continues his struggle in front of the defendant's company gate insisting and declaring that the problem is unresolved by the unfair decision of the court.
From 1987 the plaintiff has joined the defendant company's General Stockholder's meeting and has pointed out the discrimination at the defendant's workplace. He continues in his efforts against the violation of human rights, and asks for improvements in the situation of the workplace.

２　本件不法行為に至る経過（その２　株主総会に於る原告の主張）
Progress of this case.(No2 the insistence of plaintiff in Stockholder's General meeting.)

�`　被告会社に於る、一部社員に対する違法不当な、仕事の剥奪・賃金差別などの人権　　侵害の存在の指摘と、その改善方針の提議。

The insistence of the plaintiff including the existence and improvement in violations of human right　which includes wage discrimination and the taking away of tasks or responsibilities that occur in the defendant's work place.

被告会社は、被告会社が押しつけてきている非人間的労働指揮について、会社に唯々として従うことを潔しとせず批判的であると思われる社員に対して、仕事を剥奪したり、賃金差別を行うなどの非合理的労働政策を継続してきた。

The defendant's company has been continuing with its unfair labor control policy by taking away tasks or responsibilities from workers who criticize the company's unfair labor control policy.

　これの改善は企業としてのモラル、社会的責任であることは当然であるが、他方、従業員の就労意欲を高めるなど、会社にとっても有益なことであることを、毎回具体例を挙げて指摘しようとしてきた。

Such improvements are the responsibility of the company by the morals of society.
The Plaintiff has example that it's profitable for the company because the morals of the employees and enthusiasm will rise up.

�a　　被告会社の株主総会の、正常・合理的な運営についての提議。

The proposal of the plaintiff for fair management of General Stockholder's meeting of defendant's company.

被告会社の株主総会の運営実態は、以下の如きであり、法の予定する株式会社の最高意思決定機関とは到底言い難いものであったので、原告及び原告と志を同じくする株主（以下、「原告ら株主」という）は、被告会社の株主総会に於て、以下のとおりの、法律上および社会常識上当然の改善策を提議しようとしてきた。

The plaintiff has been recommending that the work environment at the defendant company be improved.

�@　出席株主の発言の機会の十分な保障

Assurance of Speech

�@　　職場での人権侵害の有無は、企業の社会的責任・職員のモラールの維持向上に関係していることが明らかであって、被告会社の運営にかかわる重要事である。従って、株主総会としても大いに関心を示し、その事実の存否ないし改善のための方策を十分に議論すべきである。

Improving the rights of the worker is paramount for the management of a company not only because these rights are related to worker morale but also because the company has a social responsibility to implement these rights. Thus, the rights of the worker is an important issue that must be discussed at shareholder meetings.

　　　にもかかわらず、原告ら株主から具体的事例を示しつつ、その改善の提起がなされようとしているにもかかわらず、全て、
　　　　「総会の目的事項外である。」
　　として答弁が拒否されてきた。

Even though the plaintiff and fellow shareholders gave examples of the human rights violations that they had witnessed at the defendant company, board members refused to discuss the matter, as it was not the theme of the meeting.

�A 　　原告ら株主は、１７年間に亘り連続して被告会社の株主総会に出席し、
　　 上記�`について提議しようとしてきたが、毎回、十分な発言が許されないままに、被告会社が動員したと思われる、社員他の翼賛的株主によって「議事打切り動議」が出され、株主による質問に対して取締役から然るべき回答・説明がなされていないにもかかわらず、かつ、まだまだ発言を求めている株主が多数存在するにもかかわらず、一方的に議事が打切られるのが常であった。

For the past 17 years the plaintiff has attended every annual shareholder meeting, each time raising the issue of workers’ rights. However, each attempt to raise this issue has been made in vain, for the defendant company obstinately refuses to address this problem. Furthermore, at these annual meetings, many other share holders are not given the opportunity to ask questions, and share holders who are mobilized by the defendant company give motions to discontinue discussions prematurely in order to avoid issues that they do not want to discuss.

�B　 　会社が大量に動員したと思われる上記株主が、取締役による議案書を読み上げるだけの形式主義的提案に対して、大声をそろえて「了解！」などと一般株主を威嚇するがごとき対応をとり、他方、これらについて内容的質問等を行おうとする一般株主の発言を、野次るなどの妨害・威嚇行為を行って真面目な議論を不可能にした。

"The mobilized stockholders " shouted "we agree!! " when the president read the bill.

They threaten other stockholders against making questions having serious discussions.

�C　 　会社側だけがマイクを使って発言し、株主には使わせなかった。

Only the company used microphones, but stockholders couldn't..

（但し、�B、�Cついては原告ら株主側の強い申入れの結果、若干改められるに至った。）

(�B,�C were improved because of plaintiff's strong protest.)

�A 総会の正常な運用、株主の権利の保障

Normal management of the meeting. Right of stockholders.

�D　 株主の中には、他の会社の株を保有している者も少なくない。被告会社は例年敢えて株主総会集中日に総会を行うことで、集中日に総会を行う会社のどれか一つにしか株主が出席出来ない状況を作り出し、他社の総会に参加せざるを得ない者が被告会社の総会に参加することを困難にしてきた。

Many stockholders have another company's stocks also.

Defendant company had been holding the meeting on "the concentrated day " intentionally.

It made impossible to join the defendant meeting for stockholders who join another company's meeting held on same day.

�E　　原告を含め、複数の個数の株式を所有する株主が出席しているにもかかわらず、議決に際して、持株数を確認せずに単純多数決で採決を行うという安易な方法が執られてきた。

Defendant had taken the vote by counting the heads of the stock holders stockholders who had plural stocks including plaintiff had attended.

�F　 被告会社だけがビデオ撮影を行い、株主には録音、撮影を許さなかった。にもかかわらず被告会社が撮影したビデオの閲覧を拒否した。

Defendant had taken the video, but they refuse stockholders to take the video or record, also they refused the plaintiff's demand to watch the video.

�G 株主名簿の閲覧拒否

The defendant had refused to show the list of stockholders.

�H　　総会の議事録をコピーさせない。

Defendant had refused to make copies of the recording of the meeting.

３　本件不法行為の事実

Unlawful act of this case.

�@　原告は、２００２年６月２７日に行われた、被告会社本店別館（港区芝浦４丁目１０番３号）に於て行われた総会に於て、上記趣旨から、株主総会集中日に総会を行わないことを提案し、その採決を求めようとした。

Plaintiff attended defendant stockholder's meeting on 2002 June 27th and proposed not to hold the meeting on " the concentrate day" and asked to take vote.

�A　　 篠塚被告会社社長は総会の冒頭、「本総会には警察官を招請している。」との宣言を行った。しかしこれは、いわゆる「盗人猛々しい」に類するとさえいうべき理不尽な行為であった。なぜなら、かって被告会社の株主総会に於て暴力行為が行われた事実が存するが、それは全て、被告会社が株主に対して行ったもののみであったのであり、株主による暴力行為は一度も起きていないからである。しかるに被告会社によってなされたこの警察官の招請は、自らの違法・暴力行為を、逆に、正当なものとみせようとするものであり、会社経営陣を批判しようとする一般株主に対する威嚇以外の何ものでもなかった。

The president Shinozuka declared that they invited police officers to stop the violence.

It was unreasonable because there was no violence by stockholders, but there was violence by company's security guard against stockholders.　　

�B　　篠塚議長は原告の提案に対し「集中日に当たるのは偶然であって意図的ではない。」などと、誰が聞いても明らかに嘘と分かる答弁を行い（２０年間にも亘って、総会の期日が、総会集中日という特定の期日と偶然に一致する確率は、天文学的数字でしか示し得ないことは言うまでもない。）　原告が求めた採決を取ることをも拒絶した。株主総会という企業の最高意志決定機関において、社長という立場においてこのような、誰が聞いても嘘と分かる答弁を行ったのである。

President Shinozuka answered " It is not the intention that the meeting has been held on the concentrate day " and refused to take vote.

Every one at the stockholders meeting, which is the highest organization to decides their mind, knew the president answered with a clear lie.

�c　　この回答は、被告の、株主全体に対する著しく不誠実な姿勢を端的に示す答弁であるばかりでなく、嘘を公の場で平然と言ってのける、社会正義に対する感覚の欠如した姿勢をも端的に示しており、看過すべきでないと考えた原告は、さらに、
　　 「採決を取らない理由を述べるよう」要求したが、それも拒否されたので、「議事運営が不当である」と指摘した。

Plaintiff though that this answer showed the defendant is extremely dishonest attitude toward stock holders and a lack of mind for social justice.

�C　　しかるに議長である篠塚被告会社社長は、会社警備員に対して、実力行使し原告を暴力的に排除することを命じた。

The president ordered their guards men to kick the plaintiff out.

�D　　当時、原告は肩部を負傷して、整形外科に通院中であった。
　　　 ところで、原告は前年にも同様の暴力排除があったため危険だと考え、医師の診断書を用意してきていたので、これを示し暴力を止めるように要求した。

In that time plaintiff had an injury on his shoulder and was commuted to clinic.

In fear that some thing dangerous, plaintiff had brought a medical certificate the year prior to the year the defendant used violence against the plaintiff.

�E　にもかかわらず、上記警備員は暴力を加え続け、原告を会場から排除した。
　　　 その際この警備員が、原告の腕を捻り上げたため、肩・腕に激痛が走り、腕がしばらく動かせない程の状況になった。

However, the security guards continued using violence against the Plaintiff and kicked him out from the room.
At that time the guards twisted and picked him up by his arms, and shoulders so that he felt excruciating pain. So he couldn't move his arm and shoulders for a short while.

�g　 　この暴行のため、原告は肩部の傷害を更に悪化させ、その治療のために同年１１月まで整形外科への通院を余儀なくされた。
That violence made his shoulder worse, so he had to commute to the hospital for treatment until November of that year.

�F　（なお、この際原告以外の株主も不法に実力行使され会場から排除されたが、そ
　　　のうちの一人は、この暴行のため、来ていた背広が破れてしまった。
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
And another stockholder were also kicked out.
One of them had his jacket torn by the violence.

　・・・・・別訴提起中）

(This stockholder brought the case to the court.)

�G 　また、原告は暴力排除を受けた際、警察官が臨席しているのなら、会社の暴力を止めさせることを求める発声を行ったが、不当にも警察官は会社による不法行為を看過した。

The plaintiff cried out in a loud voice that if police officer's were present they should stop the company's violence.
However they didn't intervene and just overlooked the incident.
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　・・・・・別訴提起中）
(The plaintiff have brought police officers to court also)

３　被告の不法行為

The illegal activity of the defendant.

以上事実経過によれば、被告には以下のとおりの不法行為責任が存する。

In that history, the defendant has a he responsibility to uphold the low.

　�`　 被告会社は、その株主総会に於て、現執行部の業務執行行為に対して疑問・異議を呈しようとする原告ら株主に対して、警備員をして暴力を加えせしめ、原告を会場から物理的に排除した。結果、原告の身体に障害を与えた。
The defendant's company, using violence, kicked out the stockholders who criticized the company's executive's unfair activity.
And through that the result was physical harm to the Plaintiff.

　　　 また被告会社は、その警察導入・総会議事運営に於る原告ら株主の無視・暴力的排除によって、原告ら株主が、恰かも、被告会社の正当な業務執行に対して、株主としてのしかるべき利害を有しないで、しかもその上、会社の業務と無関係な事柄について株主総会に於て発言等することによって、実質的には経営陣を恐喝しているところの、いわゆる「総会屋」であるかのように公然と描き出し、社会的にそのように遇する事によって、原告ら株主の人格性・名誉を深く傷つけた。

The Defendant's company harmed the Plaintiff's right as a human and his pride by treatment from the Sockeye, who had no benefit from the company's activities they threatened the company with issues unrelated to the company in order to take money from the company.

�a これによる原告の損害を、敢えて慰藉料を以て金銭的に評価するとするならば、　　 金１，０００，０００万円を下らないことが明らかである。

If we put a price on the damages received by the defendant, it must not lower than 1 million yen.

　 よって被告会社は原告に対する、民法７０９条・７１０条、ないし同７１５条による、同金額の損害賠償責任を免れない。

The defendant's company has the responsibility to pay for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff according to public law's number 709,710, and 715.

　　　 　
�b　 ところで、本件に於て警察官動員の要請・臨場、および警備員による暴力的排除が原告始め原告ら株主の名誉を甚だしく傷つけたことは上記のとおりである。

By the way, violence incurred by the security guards and the presence of the police officers at the request of the Defendant, harmed the Plaintiff's honor.

　　　従って、本件については金銭賠償のみならず、一定の原状回復が図られるべきであり、相当である。

So that, in this case, not only a monetary claim, but a restoration of the situation that occurred before the incident must take place.

　　　故に被告会社は、民法７０９・７２３条に基づき、別紙記載のとおりの謝罪文を原告に対して交付し、謝罪をなす義務が有する。

A statement of apology should be sent to the Plaintiff according to public laws #709, and 3723.

�V　結語
�V Conclusion

よって原告は、
Therefore, the plaintiff asks.

　　１　被告沖電気工業株式会社に対して
to the defendant company

　�@　民法７０９・７２３条に基づき、別紙記載のとおりの謝罪文の交付を

�@By public law 709, 723 to deliver a statement a apology to the plaintiff

�A　民法７０９・７１０条に基づき、金１，０００，０００円及びこれに対する
　　　　２００２年６月２７日以降支払済みに至るまで年５分の割合による金員の支払を求めて、本訴請求に及ぶものである。

�A　and by law 709,710 to pay plaintiff damages of 1 million plus 5% interest annually from June 27th 2002 until the damages have been paid,
　　

　 証　　　　明　　　　方　　　　法
Proof of case

甲第１号証　「報告書」（田中哲朗）　　　　２００２年沖電気株主総会の状況　　　（含　録音の反訳・写真）

Evidence #1 (report)(by Tanaka) The situation of the 2002 stockholder's meeting including picture written transcript of the recording.

甲第２号証　「決定」（浦和地方裁判所）　 沖電気工業（株）に於る人権侵害
Evidence #2 (The decision)(Urawa District Court) Human Rights Violation in OKI DENKI

甲第３号証　「診断書」（医師　布田由之）　原告の負傷に関する整形外科診断
Evidence #3 (Medical report)(Dr' Fuda Yosiyuki) Reort of physical injury sustained by plaintiff.

甲第４号証 「要求書」（田中哲朗　他）　　沖電気工業（株）に対する株主総会記録ビデオの閲覧要求
Evidence #4 (Document of demand)(Tanaka) To show the video of the stockholders meeting.

甲第５号証　「回答書」（沖電気工業（株））　上記に対する拒否回答
Evidence #5 (Document of reply)(OKI DENKI) The refusal of the above -mentioned request.

甲第６号証　「要求書」（田中哲朗　他）　　沖電気工業（株）に対する株主名簿録閲覧請求

Evidence #6 (Document of demand)(Tanaka) To show the list of the stockholders

甲第７号証　「回答書」（沖電気工業（株））　上記要求に対する拒否回答　
Evidence #7 (Document of reply)(OKI DENKI) The refusal of the above -mentioned request.

添　　　　付　　　　書　　　　類
Attachment of Supporting Document

１　甲号証の写し 各　１　通
1 Copy of the Proof of Case.

２　会社登記簿謄本 １　通
2 Copy of the Registration of the Company.

３　訴訟委任状 １ 通
3 The document commissioned by the lawyer pertaining to this case.

当　　　事　　　者　　　目　　　録
Litigant List

　〒１９３−０９４２ 　 東京都八王子市椚田町１２１４番地１ー７０７

〒１９３−０９４２ Tokyo hachiouji kuhugidacho 1214-1-707

原　　告 　 田　　中　　哲　　朗
Plaintiff : Tetsuro Tanaka

＜送達場所＞
Mailing address

〒１０７−００５２
東京都港区赤坂２丁目１４番１３号 シャトレ赤坂５階 　　　 港合同法律事務所 ｔｅｌ　（３５８５）２３３１
ｆａｘ　（３５８５）２３３０

上記原告訴訟代理人
Plaintiff's substitute

lawyer Ooguti Akihiko
弁護士　　大　　口　　昭　　彦

　　　　　　　　　 〒１０５−０００１

東京都港区虎ノ門１丁目７番１２号

被　　告 沖 電 気 工 業 株 式 会 社

代表者代表取締役 篠　　塚　　勝　　正

別紙

　 年　　月　　日

田　　中　　　哲　　朗　　　様

沖電気工業株式会社
代表取締役 　篠　　塚　　勝　　正

謝　　　　　　　　罪　　　　　　　　文

　弊社は、かねて元社員である株主の田中哲朗氏から、一定の社員に対する差別的処遇等労務政策上の問題点を指摘され、その改善を、また株主総会の運営上の問題につきましても同様に、問題点を指摘され、その改善を求められてきておりましたにもかかわらず、これらの御提言を真摯に受止め、誠意を以て努力することを懈怠してきましたことを、心よりお詫び致します。
　とりわけ２００２年６月挙行の株主総会におきましては、会社のために上記諸点を熱心に提言して下さろうとしている、田中様を始めとする株主の皆様方に十分な御発言の機会を保障しなかったばかりか、皆様方を、弊社の管理下にある総会警備員をして暴力的に実力排除せしめるに至ったこと、それにより皆様に多大の心身上の、ないし物的被害を生起してしまったことにつきまして、衷心より謝罪致しますと共に、今後二度とこのような事態を発生させないことはもとより、この間改善の必要性を御指摘になられてきました諸点につきまして、会社全体をもちまして真摯に取り組んで参りますことを誓約致します。

"Letter of Apology"
We sincerely apologize to Tetsuro Tanaka for when he pointed out the bad points of our company's labor control policy and treatment of the workers with the use of discrimination.
And also asking us to improve the situation and for waking a point of our bad management of the stockholder's meeting, and how we didn't make a point of accepting such suggestions with sincerity.
Especially the stockholder's meeting that was held in June of 203 we didn't give Mr' Tanaka and other stockholders the chance to express their enthusiastic suggestions to our company and we kicked you out by use of our security guards using violence.
By that violence you have received much physical and mental damage and also damage to your personal property.
So we apologize with sincerity and we promise we will never allow the same situation to occur again.
We are going to try with great effort to improve the situation with the points that you made out.