Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #2
Note: In the original text, footnotes are grouped together at the end of the text, but here, for the convenience of the reader, the footnotes for the relevant sections are placed at the end of the divided text.
4. Reasons for publishing the document on January 22, 2019
(2019) and misunderstood aspects of the document
The
document that I published on January 22, 2019 [Note 6] (hereinafter referred to
as the "2019 Document") is a statement of what I thought I had to
make public, at least this much, when I started discussions with my ex-fiancee.
As I wrote in "2," my mother and I thought that in order to
facilitate the discussion between the parties, we should try to refrain from
making our perceptions public. On the other hand, in a situation where a matter
between two ordinary people, my mother and her former fiancé, had evolved into
the larger topic of my marriage to His Highness Mako, we couldn't just start
discussions without sending out any messages and remain silent. Therefore, we
published a document for the year 2019, but in the document, we did not explain
in detail the history of the alleged financial troubles, and kept the content
to a minimum. The reason for this was that the specific circumstances involved
the privacy of the ex-fiancee, and it was judged that the privacy of the
ex-fiancee should not be exposed unnecessarily by revealing too much of the
circumstances [Note 7].
In the
2019 document, I explained the past relationship between my mother and her
ex-fiancee, and also explained that my mother and I had different perceptions
from those of her ex-fiancee as reported in the media, and the core of the
difference. I wrote that my mother and I would like to have a discussion with
my ex-fiancé about the difference in our perceptions, and to have him
understand and solve the problem.
Some
people have misunderstood that I am claiming in the 2019 document that money
matters are "settled matters," but this is incorrect [Note 8]. There
are still many people who mistakenly believe that I am claiming that I do not
have to return the gift because I received it, or that I do not have to repay
the gift because it was given to me, but my mother and I have never made such
claims publicly, in the 2019 document or otherwise [Note 9].
After the
release of the 2019 document, discussions with my former fiancé would begin in
May of 2019, the details of which will be explained in "6.
5. My
mother's and I's perceptions of the alleged financial troubles
As I
explained in "4," I did not explain in detail the circumstances of
the alleged financial trouble between my mother and her ex-fiancee in the 2019
document. Here, in order for you to understand what my mother has been
discussing with her former fiancé since May 2019, I will again explain my
mother and I's perceptions of the matters that are said to be financial
troubles to the extent possible and necessary.
（1）
My mother and her former
fiancé got engaged in early September 2010. The following is a description of
the communication between the two of them when they got engaged.
At the
time, my ex-fiancee lived in the same apartment complex as my mother and I. He
was also a member of the board of directors of the complex at one time, along
with my late father. My mother and I had known my ex-fiancee for a long time
because of the circumstances described above, and also because I had the
impression that he was a kind and gentlemanly person. However, the restaurants
that the ex-fiancé took her to were often expensive for my mother, who was
required to pay her fair share, and at some point she began to feel difficult
and worried that if this continued in the future, it would interfere with the
family budget. On the other hand, my mother had a good feeling about her
ex-fiancee's personality and wanted to continue the relationship with him if he
was serious about it. When I asked my ex-fiancee if this relationship was
serious, he told me that he would marry my mother if she was willing. My mother
thought that if we were going to get married, we should be honest about the
fact that we were not in a situation where we could afford it.
As we
discussed the marriage, my ex-fiancee told me that since we were going to be a
family, he would fully support me, including financially, and that he had
insurance, so even if something happened to him, he would not be stranded for
the time being. My mother felt compassion for her ex-fiancé's words, trusted
him, and accepted his proposal of marriage. My ex-fiancee also told me that he
would pay for my school fees. I am not sure if it was before or after our
engagement, but my ex-fiancé once told me that he thought of me as a family
member and that he would pay Kei's tuition as well. My mother told my ex-fiancé
that she would try to pay for my tuition as much as possible with the
scholarship because I was planning to use the scholarship and my mother knew
that (please refer to "5" Note 11 [1]). I was grateful for that.
At the
time of our engagement, my ex-fiancé suggested to my mother that we have a
cruising engagement party with our friends and that he would like to give her
an engagement ring. While my mother was grateful, she gradually came to think
that since she and her ex-fiancee were not young and this was not their first
marriage, it would be better to think of other ways to spend the money rather than
throwing a lavish party or receiving an expensive ring, so she suggested that
to her ex-fiancee. My ex-fiancee gladly accepted my mother's suggestion, and we
settled on a better use for the three of us who would become a family. At this
time, the ex-fiancé told my mother that if she ever had any financial problems,
she should not hesitate to tell him at any time.
（2）
The following year, in
March 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake struck, and my mother, who was
working as a part-time hourly employee at the time, had to work fewer days and
her income was drastically reduced. When my ex-fiancé learned about this, he
said that he could not pretend to be ignorant of the fact that we were in
trouble, that it was only natural since we were to become a family, that we
should cooperate with each other in times like these, that he was glad that he
was my fiancé, and that he was happy that I could rely on him, etc. He actually
started to provide financial support [Note 10]. Note 10].
Although
my mother said that her ex-fiancé would fully support her financially when they
got engaged, she was hesitant to ask him for help, so she asked him if she
could borrow some money. Also, when my ex-fiancee offered to help me, I asked
her if she was sure she wanted to help me. When my ex-fiancé gave me support, I
would ask him, "Are you sure you want to do this? Are you sure you can do
it? I would often ask them, "Are you sure? Each time, my ex-fiancé said
that it was natural for us to become a family, that it was nice to be relied
on, that there was nothing to worry about, and that a man never says two words.
My
mother, who already felt like a family of three, believed the words of her
ex-fiancé and began to receive support from him. From that time on, my mother
and I received support from my ex-fiancee until he broke off the engagement at
his request in September 2012 [Note 11]. At the time, I respected my ex-fiancé
for the way he always made sure that my mother was not bothered, and my mother
and I often talked about how nice he was and how grateful we were for his help.
I repeatedly expressed my gratitude to my ex-fiancee for his support during the
period before he broke off his engagement to my mother, and I am still very
grateful to him.
(3) At
11:15 p.m. on September 13, 2012, my mother suddenly received a unilateral
request from her ex-fiancé to terminate the engagement [Note 12]. When she
asked about the reason, the ex-fiancé did not give any explanation, and without
clarifying the reason [Note 13], my mother had no choice but to accept the
termination of the engagement.
At that
time, when my mother told the ex-fiancé that she would like to settle the
support she had received during the engagement period, the ex-fiancé replied,
"I had no intention of asking you to return it" [Note 14]. For these
reasons, my mother understood that there was no longer any need to exchange
money between the two of them upon the dissolution of the engagement (see
"4" Note 9).
My
mother and I both thought that the discussion about breaking off the engagement
ended amicably without any stinginess, as my ex-fiancee even offered to support
me in my trip to study abroad.
(4) In
August 2013, eleven months after the engagement was broken off, my mother
suddenly received a letter from her ex-fiancee. The contents of the letter
reversed the words, "I never intended to ask you to return the
money," and demanded repayment of the expenses incurred during the period
of our relationship.
My mother
was too surprised to know what to do, so she consulted a lawyer and on the 6th
of the same month [Note 15], she told him that she could not comply with his
request and the reason for it (including the fact that she trusted the words of
her ex-fiancee that she "did not intend to ask for the money back")
[Note 16]. 16], my ex-fiancee said that she would consult with a lawyer and
contact me if anything happened [Note 17]. At this time, my ex-fiancee never
said that she did not intend to ask me to return the money, nor did she say
anything about the reason why she broke off the engagement or about the
compensation for my mother.
(5)
Although the ex-fiancé said, "I will contact you if I need anything,"
he never contacted me again, and even when we met by chance, the topic of money
never came up [Note 18]. Since there was no further discussion even after
several years had passed, my mother and I understood that my ex-fiancee was
satisfied with the situation. Because of this history, my mother and I thought
that the support we received from my ex-fiancee during our engagement period
was a matter that had already been resolved.
(6)
However, after the unofficial announcement of my engagement to Her Highness
Princess Mako in September 2017, a comment purportedly made by a friend of my
ex-fiancee was published in Shukan Josei on December 12, 2017. At that point, I
was surprised that the content was so far from the truth, but it didn't seem to
be the story of the ex-fiancee herself, and I didn't think the news would heat
up. However, on February 16, 2018, in the Shukan Gendai (Weekly Gendai), a
comment allegedly made by the ex-fiancée herself was published, and the
one-sided story was picked up and reported every day as if it were fact. At the
time of the first report, four years and four months had passed since the
exchange in August 2013. We had many questions, such as why didn't they file a
direct claim if they wanted a refund, why did they need to use a weekly
magazine, and why did they continue to report untrue information as if it were
true? Nevertheless, as I mentioned in "3," I decided to have a proper
discussion with my ex-fiancee about our mutual understanding and to think about
how to solve the problem with his understanding.
(7)
Many people who have been exposed to the news reports so far may think that my
mother regarded her ex-fiancee as a person who was just there for money. In
reality, she did not, but it may seem that way to those who did not know my
mother directly or who did not know the situation. As I look back on those days
and try to sort out the actual circumstances, I realized once again that my
mother may have taken her ex-fiancé's words too much at face value.
This may
be difficult for many people to understand, but my mother and I thought that my
ex-fiancee was supporting us with good intentions based on the premise of
marriage, and we had no idea that the reason for breaking off the engagement
was that the support had become too much of a burden for her. The reason why my
mother told her ex-fiancee that she wanted to liquidate the support (please refer
to "5" (3)) was because she was aware that the support was based on
the premise of marriage, and she thought that she should make sure what should
be done if the marriage was to cease. In response, my ex-fiancé said, "I
had no intention of asking for it back" (see "5" (3) and
"5" Note 14), and my mother and I took him at his word. That is why,
when I read the letter from my ex-fiancee in 2013, I was still in shock that he
had suddenly broken off our engagement without telling us the reason. I also
had a strong feeling that he should have replied, "I had no intention of
asking you to return the money. The exchange ended with the ex-fiancee saying
that she would consult with a lawyer and contact us if anything happened (see
"5" (4)), and my mother and I took her word for it. That is why we
were surprised when the news came out. Looking back on the whole story, I think
my mother and I always felt that what happened between her and her ex-fiancee
was something that her ex-fiancee would have said at that time. So, was it okay
to just accept what my ex-fiancee said because she said it, or was it okay to
accept what she said because she said it? The many words of support that she
offered me, "I wasn't planning to ask you to return the money," and "I
will consult with a lawyer and contact you if anything happens," may have
been said out of the atmosphere of the moment rather than her true intentions.
However, neither my mother nor I imagined such a thing at all. This may have
been because we subconsciously wanted to accept what my ex-fiancee said as it
was.
While I
look back on those days in this way, I also find it difficult to accept the
fact that much of what has been reported up to now is not true.
The
following is a note
The
reason why it took so long to release the 2019 document was because we had to
consult with several lawyers and consider all possibilities before deciding on
a policy, and also because it took a reasonable amount of time to select a
lawyer to represent my mother and take charge of the discussions with my
ex-fiancee. In addition, it took some time to select a lawyer who would
represent my mother and take charge of the discussion with my ex-fiancee.
7] Even
if it is not specific, it is still a matter of privacy, but I judged that I was
in a situation where I had no choice but to explain my mother and I's
perceptions to a certain extent, and I felt compelled to publish the contents
of the document in 2019. And since the situation has changed further since that
time, the current document was released after reviewing the line of demarcation
as to what constitutes "more than necessary. Please refer to Note 1 in
Section 1 for consideration of the privacy of the ex-fiancee and restrictions
on the scope of what can be disclosed.
Note 8]
The 2019 document says, "Because of this, my mother and I have understood
that the support from my ex-fiancee is a matter that has been resolved. For
this reason, my mother and I were very confused by the daily reports of what we
believed to be comments made by the ex-fiancé since December 2017. When I
wrote, "We were unable to gauge the intentions of the ex-fiancee," I
think it was misunderstood as if my mother and I were claiming that the matter
had already been resolved. However, my mother and I understood that it was a
matter that had already been settled until December 2017, when we came to
believe that there might be a difference in perception between my ex-fiancee
and me due to the fact that many of the alleged financial problems were covered
in weekly magazines. The phrase "I have understood that it is a matter
that has been settled" was written as an expression in the past perfect
tense, not the present perfect tense. Furthermore, as you can see if you
continue to read the paragraphs that follow, in the document for the year 2019,
you wrote, "Both my mother and I are still grateful for the support we
received from my ex-fiancé, and we would like to make every effort to gain her
understanding in the future. I am still grateful to you for your kindness and
support. If you insist that this is a matter that has already been resolved,
then there is no need to discuss it. As I will mention in "7" below,
the article in the Weekly Gendai also misunderstood that my mother and I were
claiming that the issue had been resolved.
There was
one time in the past when my mother and I claimed that we had no intention of
repaying the money because it was a gift, although not publicly. In August
2013, about a year after my mother's engagement was terminated, my former
fiancé wrote to me with a demand that was the exact opposite of what he had
said at the time of the termination of our engagement, saying that he had no
intention of asking me to return the money. On the 6th of the same month,
following the advice of the lawyer we consulted, my mother and I verbally told
him that we could not respond to his request because we were aware that we had
received a gift from him, and we also handed him a letter with the same content
(this letter is also mentioned in "5" (4) below). In the letter, the
former fiancé stated that he had not intended to ask for the money back when
the marriage was dissolved (the letter stated, "It was given to you. I did
not intend to ask for repayment from the beginning," which will be
explained in Note 15 of "5" below), the letter stated,
"Therefore, the 4,093,000 yen that you are requesting repayment of was
given to you by Kayo Komuro and was not loaned to you. Therefore, I have no
intention of repaying the money." "On September 14, 2012, you
unilaterally broke off your engagement to Kayo Komuro, and you have not given
any specific reason for this. Kayo Komuro has been psychologically injured by
your unilateral annulment for which no reason was given. We are not satisfied
with the fact that she is receiving such a claim without any apology or
compensation for it. The fact that this letter was circulated, and that my
mother and I did not deny it, led to the misunderstanding that my mother and I
were still arguing and claiming that we did not have to return the gift because
we received it, or that we did not have to repay the gift because we received
it. However, since August 2013 (2013), my mother and I have never claimed that
we do not have to repay the gift because it was given to us.
After the
news report came out, my mother and I consulted with a lawyer again about the
actual circumstances, and rearranged the situation as follows [1] and [2]. As a
result, we came to the conclusion that although there was no need to revise the
reason we gave when claiming that we had no intention of repaying the money
(based on the statement of the former fiancé and based on the liquidation with
the claim for damages), the use of the word "gift" in explaining this
reason was not necessarily sufficient. I have come to the conclusion that the
expression "gift" was not necessarily sufficient in explaining this
reason. This expression was used in line with the fact that my ex-fiancee said
that she did not intend to ask me to return the money, and my mother and I
thought we emphasized this fact, but my mother and I did not say enough at the
time, and I think there was a more meaningful way to explain the situation.
1]
Regarding the money exchanged between my mother and her ex-fiancee from April
2011 until her ex-fiancee broke off the engagement with my mother, it is not
necessarily clear whether the money was lent (loan) or given (gift). It seems
that my mother expressed both "Can I borrow it?" and
"Help", so this could have been a case of both. My mother talked with
her ex-fiancee about how the money would be used when they got engaged (details
will be explained in "5" (1) below), so she basically did not think
of the money as a debt, as it was given to her on the assumption that they
would become a family after marriage. On the other hand, there were times when
I asked for support with the intention of borrowing and paying back. At the
same time, there were times when I asked for support with the intention of
borrowing the money and paying it back. When I asked for support, my mother
thought it was a loan, but later she told me verbally that it was given to her
by her ex-fiancee. The fact is that even the two of them at the time didn't
always confirm clearly, and even if they did, there were no deeds, and the main
exchange was done orally (and apparently some by e-mail). It is difficult to
clarify after the fact whether it was a loan or a gift. Furthermore,
considering the fact that there are some discrepancies between the perceptions
of the two parties (to be explained in detail in Note 11 of "5"
below), I think it is reasonable to conclude that there is a possibility that
both the money that should have been a loan and the money that should have been
a gift existed until the time the engagement was broken. However, by the words
of the ex-fiancée on September 13, 2012, "I had no intention of having you
return the money," the obligation of my mother to repay the money that was
a loan (rather than turning it into a gift) would be exempted, and the money
that was a gift would be exempted. As for the money that was a gift, it will be
reconfirmed between the two of you that it was a gift from the beginning. After
consulting with a lawyer again and sorting out the above, I think it would have
been more accurate to explain that the money from the ex-fiancee was not
uniformly described as a "gift," but rather to explain that she told
me she had no intention of having it returned.
2] In
accordance with the unilateral annulment of the engagement by the ex-fiancee
and my mother's response to it, it can be summarized as follows. In response to
the ex-fiancee's statement that she did not intend to have the money returned
to her, my mother waived her right to claim compensation for damages related to
the broken engagement. As a result of the ex-fiancee's words and my mother's
response, even if the ex-fiancee had the right to claim the money back, it was
settled along with my mother's right (right to claim damages), and my mother is
no longer obligated to repay the money to the ex-fiancee. In this regard as well,
after consulting with the lawyer again and sorting out the above, it is not
sufficient to uniformly describe the money from the ex-fiancee as a
"gift" because the money, which may have been a loan up to the point
of breaking the engagement, does not turn into a gift, and "I did not
intend to have it returned. I think it would have been more accurate to just
explain what you were told.
After the
matter of the so-called financial trouble was taken up, my mother and I
rearranged the above again. For this reason, we do not use the word
"gift" in the 2019 document either. In the same document, based on
the words of the former fiancé at the time of the dissolution of the
engagement, "I had no intention of having you return the money," I explained
that I recognized that I had already confirmed that I had no obligation to
repay the money based on the arrangement of [1] and [2], regardless of the
purpose of the original exchange of money. The arrangement in [1] is based on
the statements made by the ex-fiancee, and the arrangement in [2] is based on
the liquidation with the claim for damages. As I mentioned above, the
underlying reason for the arrangement of [1] and [2] itself is the same as the
reason I gave in the letter I gave to my ex-fiancee in August 2013, when I
claimed that I had no intention of repaying her (based on the statement of my
ex-fiancee and based on the liquidation with the claim for damages). This is
the same reason I gave when I claimed that I had no intention of repaying the
money. What I am explaining here is that my mother and I believe that using the
word "gift" as an expression of the reason was not sufficient, and
that it would have been more accurate to explain that we were told that we were
not going to get the money back.
Although
there is legally room to claim damages for a unilateral annulment without
giving a reason, some people may find it difficult to understand why you would
consider compensation for damages if you had received support. This idea is
just a legal evaluation based on a review of past events.
Because
of this, it was not until April 2011, when the Great East Japan Earthquake
struck, that my mother began to receive regular support from her ex-fiancee,
including living expenses. Before the Great East Japan Earthquake, there were
events as explained in [1] of Note 11 in Section 5.
Note 11]
The following is a list of "things that they have different perceptions
of" (see also [1] in Note 9 of "5") regarding the support from
their ex-fiancees. From the information reported as the story of my ex-fiancee,
I have selected those that are significantly different from my mother and I's
perceptions and those that have been reported repeatedly and prominently
(please refer to Note 1 in "1" for the fact that this is not all of
them).
1] There
are reports that my ex-fiancee loaned money to my mother to pay for my college
entrance and tuition fees, but all of the entrance and tuition fees are covered
by my savings and scholarships. The article in the Shukan Gendai says that my
ex-fiancee loaned me the entrance fee on November 1, 2010, and the tuition in
the spring of the year after I enrolled, but that is not accurate information.
First of all, I enrolled in the school on September 2, 2010, and my ex-fiancee
knows this, so it doesn't add up that they loaned me the entrance fee in
November when I had already enrolled. In fact, the following is what happened.
First of
all, I paid the entrance fee from my own savings (part-time job), so there is
no evidence that I received a loan from my ex-fiancee for the entrance fee. I
also paid the tuition for the first semester (fall semester) out of my savings
as well. I wanted to use the scholarship to pay for the tuition from the second
semester (winter semester) onward, so I applied to the university for the
scholarship loan system on September 21 after I entered the university. Since
it was decided that I could use this system, I signed a contract with a
financial institution on October 12 of the same year, and on November 24,
453,000 yen in scholarship money was transferred to me, which I paid as tuition
for the second semester on November 26. After that (from the third semester of
the first year to graduation), I paid all the tuition fees using both the
loan-type scholarship and the benefit-type scholarship. Therefore, there is no
fact that I received a loan from my ex-fiancee for tuition fees in the spring
of the year after I entered the university.
As I
wrote in "5" (1), in the discussion between my mother and my
ex-fiancee about our engagement, she said that she would pay my tuition. I'm
not sure if it was before or after the engagement, but he also said that he
would pay for Kei's tuition since we are a family. Although my mother had told
my ex-fiancé that she would try to pay for my tuition with a scholarship, we
had been communicating about tuition before we got engaged, so I was grateful
to have the peace of mind that my ex-fiancé would pay for my tuition if the
scholarship was not available. I was especially eager to rely on the words of
my ex-fiancé regarding the tuition for the first semester I would apply for the
scholarship (winter semester) after I entered the school. This was because my
mother had assumed that even if I received the scholarship, it would not be
awarded by the end of the year (I think this was due to the fact that I had not
properly explained the details of the scholarship program and I was not aware
of her misunderstanding). On another occasion (the time is not clear, but it
was when we were talking in my ex-fiancee's car, later than when she made the
above comment), my mother and my ex-fiancee talked about my college. During the
conversation, my mother told my ex-fiancé that I had paid for the entrance fee
with my part-time job and that I would apply for a scholarship for the second
semester (winter term). He said he would like to give it to me as a gift from
his father. My mother felt that my ex-fiancé was supporting my college life, so
she decided to accept the gift. Because of the circumstances described above, my
mother felt relieved when she heard about the gift. She felt relieved to
receive the gift, because she thought that she would be able to pay the tuition
even if something happened to her.
However,
she did not receive any gift from her ex-fiancé soon after, and as the time for
tuition payment approached, my mother became increasingly worried about the
tuition. She began to think that her ex-fiancé might have forgotten about the
gift, and she wondered what she should say to her ex-fiancé in case she couldn't
pay the tuition on time. I asked her to send the money for the second semester
(winter term). My ex-fiancee sent 453,000 yen to my mother's account on
November 1st. When I look back now and think about my mother's behavior, it is
obvious that she was not calm.
As I
mentioned above, my scholarship was approved on October 12, was awarded on
November 24, and I used the money to pay my tuition for the second semester
(winter term) on November 26 (my mother didn't realize her mistake until the
scholarship was actually awarded). I thanked my ex-fiancee for the gift of
admission and gratefully accepted the money she transferred to me. From the
fact that it was an entrance gift, my ex-fiancée may have mistakenly thought
that the money given on November 1 was an entrance fee, but it was an entrance
gift equivalent to one semester's tuition, not a loan.
In the
Shukan Gendai article, my ex-fiancé said that he had been asked to pay the
entrance fee and other tuition support because he had been accepted to International
Christian University and Meiji University and wanted to go to the former even
though the tuition was higher, but I paid the entrance fee myself and this is
not true. As for the tuition support, there were some words from my ex-fiancé
as described in "5" (1), but in the end, I paid all the tuition with
my own savings and scholarship. Incidentally, I have never applied to Meiji
University.
2] In
September 2012, I went to study at the University of California, Los Angeles
for one year using the university's exchange program. Since I needed to have a
sufficient balance in my bank account for this purpose, my mother asked my
ex-fiancé to temporarily transfer 2 million yen to me. When my mother told him
that she would like to return the money to him now that she has successfully
obtained a visa, my ex-fiancé told her that it would be too much trouble to
transfer the money every time, so she asked him to use it for her living
expenses for the time being. We decided to use the money for our living
expenses. I think the reason he said it was too much trouble to transfer the
money one by one was because there would come a time in the future when we
would need support, so he asked us to save it all together. In the Shukan
Gendai article, it is said that the ex-fiancee transferred 2 million yen as
study abroad expenses, but this is not true. As for the study abroad expenses,
they were covered by a scholarship that supports study abroad, a university
scholarship, and my savings (part-time job). There were reports that my mother
offered to use the money for living expenses, but this is not true.
There are
reports that my mother proposed to break off the engagement, but this is
completely wrong. It is strange that such reports are being made, because there
seems to be no such statement made by the former fiancé.
There was
a history of engagement after discussing financial issues, and when the
ex-fiancee got engaged, he said, "Since we are going to be a family, I
will fully back you up, including financially, and if you have any financial
problems, please don't hesitate to tell me anytime. After the earthquake, my
mother believed in his words: "We can't pretend that we don't know each
other when we are in trouble, it is only natural that we should cooperate with
each other since we are going to be a family. She thought that it was because
he had lost his feelings for her, but she did not think that it was about
money.
I was
present at the meeting and heard this exchange myself. Also, since there is a
recording, I can confirm that the ex-fiancee said, "I had no intention of
asking for it back. This recording has been confirmed by the lawyer I consulted
when I suddenly received a letter from my ex-fiancee around August 2013,
several lawyers I have consulted, and the lawyer representing my mother (see
Note 4 in "3").
The
following is an excerpt of the relevant part of this recording, in which the
following exchange takes place. When my mother started to say that she would
like to settle the support, and my ex-fiancee responded by saying that it was a
gift and that she had no intention of asking for repayment from the beginning,
I thought it would be a good idea to record it, so I recorded it on the spur of
the moment. I recorded it on the spur of the moment, thinking it would be
better to record it. After this exchange, we moved on to a topic that had
nothing to do with support during the engagement period, and the topic of
support during the engagement period did not come up again until the end.
Ex-fiancee: "I wasn't going to ask for it
back.
Mom:
"Is there such a thing?
Ex-fiancee: "Oh no, I said, is there,
because at that time, because...
Mom:
"Is there such a thing as 'because' I wonder. I've never met anyone like
that.
I've
never met anyone like that before. Yes.
My
ex-fiancee said, "Yes. I didn't intend to ask for it back at all... I paid
for it.
The
existence of this recording was reported by the mother's representative to the
reporter who was the contact person for the ex-fiancee (details will be
explained in "6" (1) below), but we have not been able to confirm
whether the reporter told the ex-fiancee or not.
The
article in the Shukan Gendai says that my mother did not respond immediately
after receiving the letter in August, but the fact is different because she did
respond immediately. However, perhaps because she was in too much of a hurry to
reply, the date of the annulment is wrong (the letter states that the date of
the annulment was September 14, but as stated in "5" (3), the actual
date of the annulment was September 13). In addition, I am very sorry to say
that the name of my ex-fiancee is listed incorrectly. Also, for some reason,
instead of the properly recorded statement "I had no intention of asking
for the money back," I have included the statement based on my mother's
memory that it was given to her and that she had no intention of asking for
repayment from the beginning (please refer to Note 14 of "5"). All of
these things are very difficult to understand in hindsight, but my mother and I
were completely unaware of these things at the time because we were surprised
and upset that my ex-fiancee had sent us a letter that said the exact opposite
of what she had said herself. Even after I gave the letter to my ex-fiancee, as
I wrote in "5" (5), I thought I had convinced her, and I only
realized the above when I checked the letter again after the news report came
out.
In the
Shukan Gendai article, it is said that my mother only replied that she did not
borrow the 4 million yen, but that it was a gift, but this is not true. As
explained in Note 9 of "4," the mother explained the reason for
breaking off the engagement and told the ex-fiancee that she had no money for
alimony. The fact that the ex-fiancee did not say anything in response to this
is explained in "5" (4).
In
addition, it has been reported that my mother has paid the gift tax. I didn't
think I needed to pay the gift tax until then, but after the news report, an
acquaintance asked me if I had paid the gift tax, so I paid it as a precaution.
My
ex-fiancee seems to have recorded this exchange and provided it to a weekly
magazine. Some of the past weekly magazine reports claimed that this recording
was made by me, but it was made by my ex-fiancee. My mother and I were unaware
of the existence of the recording until we saw it in the press.
Since my
mother and I lived in the same condominium, we would exchange greetings
whenever we saw each other, and since I became the president of the condominium
from July 2017 to June 2018, I was able to attend regular meetings of the
condominium management association and the management association and
management company. I frequently met my ex-fiancee at regular meetings between
the condominium management association, management association and the company.
After the news report with Mako came out in May 2017, my ex-fiancee even told
me that she was supporting me. I think we would have had plenty of
opportunities to talk if we thought the issue had not been resolved, but we
never talked about our support during the engagement.
Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #1
Full Text of Komuro's 28-page Document #2
Comments
Post a Comment