Full Text of Kei Komuro's 28-page Document #4
7. About the article in Gendai Weekly released on November
30, 2020
In the
Weekly Gendai [Note 34] published on November 30, 2020, there was an article
about what the ex-fiancee had said, and a similar article was published the
following week on December 11. In these articles, it is mentioned that the ex-fiancee
said that she would not ask for money, but there is no mention of the fact that
she said she did not think the matter was settled.
It also
states that it was the document released by Mako on November 13, 2020 that led
her to think about announcing that she would not ask for payment, but in fact,
she had already expressed her intention not to ask for payment more than a year
ago, and her intention to make it public was not announced until November 13.
In fact, his intention not to ask for payment had already been expressed more
than a year ago, and his desire to go public had already been clearly expressed
in October, before November 13 [Note 35].
Above
all, the fact that the Komuro family consistently claimed that the money they
received from the ex-fiancé was not a loan but a gift and that the financial
problem had been solved in the discussions between the mother and the ex-fiancé
is completely different. As I wrote mainly in "4," my mother and I
have never publicly claimed the nature of the money from my fiancé, and even if
not publicly, my mother and I have never claimed the nature of the money to my
ex-fiancé since around August 2013 (see note 9 in "4"). ). We have
never claimed that the money issue has been resolved (see "4" text
and "4" note 8).
As mentioned above, in order to proceed with the discussion
between my mother and my ex-fiancee, we tried to find out where the differences
in our perceptions were, but the discussion has come to a halt at the
"sorting out the differences in perceptions" stage. My ex-fiancee
seems to be saying that the discussion did not proceed because my mother and I
insisted that it was a gift and did not give in. As I wrote in "6"
(6), I never informed my ex-fiancee about the loan except when I told her about
my mother's and my ex-fiancee's perception that she loaned me the entrance fee
in November 2010 and the tuition in the spring of the following year.
And I
told you this not to make a claim, but to discuss the discrepancy in
perception. Immediately after that, she replied that she was mistaken about the
entrance fee and tuition, and that she wanted to stop the discussion because
she no longer wanted to request money and there was no need to discuss the
matter (see "6" (7) and following). Note 36]. It is very regrettable
that the discussion with the ex-fiancee has been discontinued and that the
situation is as it is now.
8.
Conclusion
I am sure
that readers of this document will have various impressions and impressions.
However, although there are recordings and other records of the events leading
up to the release of the document in 2019, most of the information in this
document has not been recorded. Although there are recordings and other
records, much of it is based on my and my mother's perceptions. Therefore, some
of you may think that this document is a one-sided account of my mother and me.
Nevertheless, I would be happy if there is even one person who understands that
there were various circumstances.
April 8,
2021 (JST)
Kei Komuro
The following is a note
Note 34]
Shukan Gendai is a weekly magazine with which the reporter who was the contact
person for the ex-fiancee had an exclusive contract, at least at the time he
first met the agent on May 8, 2019 (see note 19 of "6").
According
to the Shukan Gendai article, the former fiancée informed the agent of this
intention at the end of 2019, but it was precisely on November 13, 2019. Also,
it was not until October 5, 2020, at the latest, that he clearly stated that he
would announce this intention to the world. In any case, it is unreasonable to
use the document released by Mako on November 13, 2020 as a reason.
This is a
hypothetical situation, but if the difference in perceptions between the two
parties had not been resolved even after proper discussions had been held, and
a confrontation had become unavoidable, we might have made our first claim
regarding the nature of the money, as we did in August 2013. However, even in
such a case, as explained in Note 9 of Section 4, it cannot be argued that we
do not have to return the money because we received a gift.
Above.
Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #1
Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #2
Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #3
Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #4
Comments
Post a Comment