June 27, 2022
To whom it may concern:
Name of Company:

Suruga Bank, Ltd.

Name of Representative:

Director and President: Kosuke Saga
(Code No. 8358 Prime Section of Tokyo
Stock Exchange)

Contact Person:

Senior Executive Officer General Manager ofGeneral Management Planning

Headquarters:

Tatsuya Akita(TEL 03-3279-5535)

Notice of Decision to Dismiss Shareholder Petition for a Provisional
Disposition Order, etc. Prohibiting Interference with Shareholder
Rights in Connection with the 211th Annual General Meeting ofShareholders
As Suruga Bank, Ltd. (“the Company”) announced in the "Notice of a Shareholder Petition for a Provisional
Disposition Prohibiting Infringement of Shareholder Rights in Connection with the Company's 211th Annual
General Meeting of Shareholders" dated June 22, 2022, on June 17, 2022, the 303 company shareholders (the"Plaintiffs") filed a petition (the "Petition") with the Numazu Branch of the Shizuoka District Court for aprovisional injunction prohibiting the Company and the President and Representative Director of the Company,as debtors, from interfering with shareholder rights in connection with the 211th Annual General Meeting ofShareholders of the Company scheduled for June 29, 2022 (the " Meeting"). The Company hereby announcesthat a decision to dismiss the Petition was made today as follows.
Notea. The date of the decision to dismiss the Petition
June 27, 2022
b. Circumstances leading to the decision to dismiss
The Plaintiffs have sought, primarily, a preliminary injunction to the effect that the Company shall not
hold the Meeting and, secondly, a preliminary injunction to the effect that the Company and its President
and Representative Director shall not prevent the Plaintiffs from attending the Meeting and exercising theirshareholder rights, on the grounds that the restriction on seating at the venue and the pre-registration system
are an infringement on the exercise of the right to participate in the shareholders' meeting. In holding theMeeting with COVID-19 still not under control, the Company believes that the pre-registration system isan acceptable method as stated in the Q&A on Operation of General Meeting of Shareholders dated April
2, 2020 by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Justice, as it is necessary tohave a spacious seating area at the venue, and a drawing will be conducted fairly by outsourcing to a third-party vendor. Therefore, we contend that this Petition should be promptly denied on the grounds that there
is no violation of law or unfairness, etc.

c. Contents of the decision of provisional disposition
The Petitions of the Plaintiffs are all dismissed.
The Plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the Petition.

The Shizuoka District Court Numazu Branch ruled that there was no reason for the Plaintiffs’ primary
Petition, on the grounds that the adoption of the pre-registration system was unavoidable and could not be
deemed to lack reasonableness; i) The Q&A on Operation of General Meeting of Shareholders dated April
2, 2020 by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Justice permitting to adopt apre-registration system similar to the pre-registration system adopted by the Company at the Meeting, andsuch view has not been changed to date and, ii) at the 210th Annual General Meeting of Shareholders, risks
such as droplet infection occurred, as a number of shareholders made loud and irregular remarks during theproceedings, and a number of shareholders ignored staff attempt’s and crowded the podium at the front ofthe hall where the chairperson was present. In order to limit the number of shareholders attending themeeting to a certain number for the public interest purpose of preventing the spread of COVID-19, and toensure fairness among shareholders, it is unavoidable to adopt a pre-registration system whereby attendees
are selected by drawing from those who have pre-registered if the number of applicants who pre-registerexceeds the number of seats available at the venue.
As for the secondary Petition, the court ultimately concluded that the right to be protected in relation to thepreliminary Petition was not recognized and that there was no reason for the Petition because the right toparticipate in general meetings claimed by the Plaintiffs is not recognized as a right that requires a company
to have all shareholders who wish to attend a general meeting of shareholders. In addition, in this case, it isdifficult to believe that it is essential for all 303 Plaintiffs to attend the explanation of the purpose of themeeting and the question and answer session at the shareholders' meeting. Moreover, since it is possible forPlaintiffs who are shareholders or Plaintiffs who are shareholders delegated by the shareholders selected by
the drawing to explain the purpose of shareholder proposals, the adoption of a pre-registration system is notconsidered to be an unreasonable infringement of the right to participate in the meeting in relation toPlaintiffs who are unable to attend due to the drawing and in relation to Plaintiffs who have were selectedin the drawing or Plaintiffs who may attend the Meeting by delegation of the selected Plaintiffs, the right toparticipate in the General Meeting is not restricted.

d. Future policy
The Company believes that the judicial decision has clearly affirmed the legitimacy of the pre-registration
system and the drawing systems adopted by the Company and upon receipt of the decision to dismiss thePetition, the Company will hold the Meeting as scheduled.
(End of document)