Editor's Note
This is a human translated court order released by Hiroyuki Nishimura (tweet, source). The translation is lined up against the original to the best of my ability.

In this document, the Tokyo District Court finds that Jim Watkins (owner of both Race Queen Inc and Defendant NT Technologies, current manager of 8ch.net and 2ch.net [now 5ch.net]) illegally seized 2ch.net from Plaintiff Hiroyuki Nishimura and collected illegitimate profits from it, which the Court now demands be repaid in full.

Hiroyuki is currently in the United States (as of Jan-13-2019) hoping to get the American courts to enforce this verdict. The introduction in this document is written by Hiroyuki and warns Jim Watkins of criminal prosecution.


2ちゃんねる掲示板を違法に乗っ取ったNTテクノロジー社への裁判の判決が、東京地裁で言い渡されたのでお伝えします。 The Tokyo Distric Court has decided that the Company NT Technologies, that controls the 2 Channel Bulliten board, has commited a crime.
結論としては、原告・西村博之の全面勝訴となります。 The Plantiff Hiroyuki Nishimura has won.
サーバ管理をしていたNTテクノロジー社が、経営に行き詰まり、2ちゃんねるを乗っ取ったというのが事実として認定されました。 It has been established as a fact that NT Technologies was in charge of maintaining the servers.
被告NTテクノロジー社は、「2ちゃんねるは、NTテクノロジー社と西村博之との共同事業である」、
「2ちゃんねるを運営しているのは、Race Queen inc」であるなどの主張をしていましたが、
矛盾した主張をしていることを裁判所に指摘され、NTテクノロジー社の主張は却下されています。
The Defendant "NT Techonlogies" has stated that the maintainance of the servers is a joint venture between them and Nishimura. Althought they originally claimed that "RACE QUEEN INC" was in charge of the administration of the servers, the court decided that these statments were contracadictory.
Wikipediaなどでは「『NTテクノロジー』会長ジム・ワトキンスがサーバー料金の未払いを理由に当時の運営陣であるひろゆきらを全員解任し」などの文章が散見されます。
原告・西村博之らは被告に対してサーバ料金の前払い等、必要以上の手当てを行なっていました。
被告・NTテクノロジー社は2ちゃんねるの運営に関わったことはないので、解任する権限はないことも、今回の判決で明らかになりました。
"The Presdient of NT Technologies, Jim Watkins", according to Wikipedia, dismissed Hiroyuki from the managment of the server because of failure to pay the server fees."
The Plantiff, Hiroyuki, stated he had done more than what was necessary, including things such as paying the server fees in advance.
Since the Defendant, NT Technologies, has never had anything to do with the managment of 2channel, its clear in this ruling that they have no authority to dismiss (Hiroyuki).
仮執行宣言も含む判決が出ましたので、乗っ取り事件に関わった方、現運営に関わっている方は、違法行為を継続していることになります。
民事及び刑事での責任を追及する可能性がありますので、重々ご承知おきください。
Based on the provisional judegements, those involded in the takeover, are there by doing it illegally. Please acknowledge that there is a possibly that there will be prosuection in this crimial case.

6/22/2018

From the desk of the Judge's secretary on the same date listed above.

Case WA Number 31166 from 2014.

Request the restoration to it's original state
The end of the oral proceedings where on 4/27/2018.

Verdict

Main Part

1. The Defendant, will pay, to the Plaintiff, $1,280,000 USD, as well as $260,000 from 7/7/27,
$50,000 from 9/6/28, $818,000 from 12/9/29, in 6 instalments over the course of a year.

2. The Defendant is also responsible for the cost of any legal fees.

3. This is temporary based on the first verdict.

The Defendant’s claim

The Plaintiff's claim withstanding

The decisions of the 5th court

Regarding issue 1 (International Court Jurisdiction)

In regards to the request of the Plaintiff of this case, as to whether or not international jurisdiction is granted to Japan, we will take into account the contents of this business outsourcing agreement, the status of Plaintiff concerning 2channel and the situation of Defendant’s involvement etc. Since we must make a judgement in advance, we will examine these points below.

1. In regards to this outsourcing contract, according to the above pre-assumptions, facts and evidence (1, 2 of 2, 12, 13, 6, 6, 7 of 7 to 10, Plaintiff representative)  it is acknowledged that the presented outsourcing contract was signed between the Defendant and the Plaintiff in February of 2002.

In other words, in February 2002, the Plaintiff’s representative concluded that a contract with the Defendant to use a 2channel server at a monthly cost of $20,000, in addition to the fee for server management, was made and had stated that he had remitted the same amount monthly as his claimant. The statement of the Plaintiff's representative is:

(1) The Plaintiff, in response to the Defendant, that they had made remittances of at least 20 million yen per year from 2003 to February 2013 (2, 12 of 7-10). It is presumed that some sort of debt / obligation relationship arose intermittently

(2) At least, until February 19, 2014, the fact that the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff delegate was involved in the management of 2channel (Part 13, Plaintiff representative) and the Defendant operated and managed the server, in light of meeting with the company (not withstanding), it is most reasonable to think that the purpose of Plaintiff’s remittance is related to management of the server,

(3) The fact that the amount from the Plaintiff to the Defendant at the time of remittance, was a minimum amount of around 2 million yen (Part 12). If we compare that there was no contact from the Defendant stating things like the amount of remittance was insufficient, it is within reason and highly credible that the original amount to be remitted was $20,000.

In response to this, the Defendant denies the establishment of this business outsourcing contract, and claims that the 2channel is a joint project between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, it is difficult to think about the assertion that the original contract itself has not been established in light of the above. Furthermore, regarding domain registration of 2channel, even though it is accepted that the Defendant is described as a contact and registrant on the administrative aspects (B 5,6) in addition to managing the server, there is no proof of assertion about what kind of work was specifically carried out, and the above description exists only to respond to the Defendant's response. In regards to the Defendant to 2channel, the above description stands. Since February 19, 2013, it was impossible to assert that the Plaintiff, in regards to the management of 2channel, operated 2channel as a co-operative project and even in light of the Plaintiff's responsibility for asserting the subcontracting contract, it does not affect the above conclusion.

2. Regarding the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant

Next, according to the evidence (A, 12, 13, the representative of the Plaintiff), the following facts are acknowledged, to see the status of Plaintiffs and Defendant involvement concerning 2channel, and the business outsourcing contract. Regarding statements made by the Plaintiffs' representatives, the credibility of the statements concerning (1) above is high, the degree of charge is also specific for other circumstances, and even if they are examined closely, it can be said that the content is reasonable and that it should be said that we can sufficiently trust the part concerning the following certification.

A. The Plaintiff delegate opened and operated 2channel around 1999. Plaintiff delegates received notification from an outside company named Zero ("Zero") ran by Nakao Yoshihiro (hereinafter referred to as "Nakao") around 2000 in order to post Zero’s advertisements on 2channel. Around that time, Zero was the Defendant’s sales agent, and in exchange for placing advertisements on 2channel, it would make it possible to use the Defendant 's server for free.
At the beginning of using Defendant's servers, Jim Watkins (referred to “Jim” below) was the financer and manager, plus Nakao and his representatives.

B. Around 2002, Nakao stated that he wanted to charge the Plaintiff’s representatives a fee for using the server, and a contract was set up for $20,000 a month to be paid in order to use the server. Subsequently, the above contract became a business outsourcing contract, and Plaintiff began paying money to the Defendant.

C. Nakao left the management of the Defendant afterwards, and Jim began managing the Defendant. Jim came to ask Plaintiffs for prepayment of business commission for this business outsourcing agreement for the allegation that the Defendant’s older sister was sick, that business was not going well and that he needed money. However, at what time this occurred is not necessarily clear. In response to Jim's request for prepayment, the Plaintiff made remittance to the Defendant as described in the (4,3 (Plaintiff's claim) (2) A to C after February 2011).

D. The Defendant, on February 19 2014, prevented the Plaintiff access to 2 channel’s server, and the Defendant himself started to manage 2channel, and since then it began to use advertisements on 2channel.
The Plaintiff representative said that he was unable to access the 2channel server and contacted Jim, and said he would be able to regain access if the Plaintiffs' representatives paid $50,000.
The Plaintiff remitted $50,000 to the Defendant on the 21st of the same month, but the Plaintiff could still not access the 2channel server after that.

(3) From the above (1) as well as (2) we can confirm, if we examine the facts, that until 2/19/2014 2 channel was managed by the Plaintiff (in addition, his representatives).
On the same day, according to the Defendant, the Plaintiff was no longer involved in the website, and instead, it is necessary to say that the Defendant took over management of the 2channel.

To the contrary, the Defendant alleges that, at the time of filing the case, 2channel was claimed to be run by Race Queen, Inc, but according to the Defendant himself, was at the same time running 2channel as a joint project with the Plaintiff, while insisting that the above company separately operated 2channel. This argument contradicts itself, therefore the Defendant's claim cannot be accepted.

Even if we leave it at this, the evidence (Part 4) states that Race Queen Inc. is the owner of the 2 ch.net domain on the 2 Channel's bulletin board.

However, the facts certified under (1) and (2) above are not to be ignored from the description, and therefore it cannot be said that it denies the involvement of the Defendant and the above-mentioned Race Queen, Inc.

Therefore, in any case, the Defendant's claim cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, in this case, it cannot be concluded that the above circumstances have been changed until the filing of this case.

1. Issue 2
Finally, based on the circumstances at the time of the Plaintiff’s filling of this case, if the Defendant could be said to be the administrator of the Japanese language site called 2channel, which is able to be viewed in Japan, then the Defendant may be said to be a person engaged in business in Japan and that the Plaintiff 's request for this matter relates to the business of the Defendant in Japan. Therefore, as for Plaintiff's prejudiced request, it can be said that there is international jurisdiction in Japan pursuant to Article 3.3.1, 3.3.3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, at least, Article 3.3.5, according to these issues, which allows international jurisdiction in Japan.

2. Issue 2 (the establishment of the business outsourcing contract)
As approved in the preceding year, it is acknowledged that this contract outsourcing contract has been concluded.

3. Issue 3 (Defendant’s default)
As it has been approved in the preceding year, that at least since February 2011, it is accepted that the Plaintiff, as requested by Defendant, has paid the service commission fee pertaining to this business outsourcing agreement ahead of schedule. Incidentally, with respect to the money paid by the Plaintiff, the money sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant pertains to the business outsourcing contract. Since there are no unpaid incidences in the past, for payment exceeding 20,000 US dollars a month, I cannot be regarded as paying future business commissions.

The Plaintiff, after February 19, 2014, had become unable to access the 2channel server, in light of the details and contents of the conclusion of this business outsourcing contract, it can be said that it is clear that the Plaintiff is the operator of 2channel and it is said that the measures the Defendant took to make this impossible leads the Defendant into defaulting on his business outsourcing contract.

Therefore, the Defendant is deemed to have defaulted on this business outsourcing contract.

4. Issue 4

(Whether the Defendant is obliged to restore the original state due to the release of the outsourcing agreement),
As described above, the Plaintiff, regarding this business outsourcing contract, it is to be made effective intention to be released from the contract based on the Defendant’s default of said contract, and can be said that the contract was terminated by this release.

Furthermore, concerning the business commission fee paid in advance for the work which has not yet been done, if the contract is terminated without the working being done, it is assumed natural for the cosigner to ask for a refund. Therefore, the Plaintiff should be able to request the Defendant to return the commission fee for the prepaid amount already paid as a request for recovering the state as a result of the release of the business outsourcing contract.

5. Conclusion
According to the above, there is no reason to consider the remainder of the information, therefore there is a reason for the claim by the Plaintiff.

6. As mentioned above, there are reasons for Plaintiff 's claim, so it will be accepted and judged based on the information in the Main Part.

Tokyo Civil Court 24