Make The World
More Sustainable[Provisional Translation Only]
This English translation of the original Japanese document is provided solely for information purposes.
Should there be any discrepancies between this translation and the Japanese original, the latter shall prevail.

June 6, 2023
IssuerIchigo Office REIT Investment Corporation (“Ichigo Office,” 8975)
1-1-1 Uchisaiwaicho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Representative: Keisuke Chiba, Executive Director
www.ichigo-office.co.jp/en
Asset Management Company
Ichigo Investment Advisors Co., Ltd.
Representative: Hiroshi Iwai, President
Inquiries: Yuji Kamo, Head of Ichigo OfficeTel: +81-3-3502-4891

Questions Sent to Berkeley Global
Ichigo Office is holding an Extraordinary Shareholder Meeting (“EGM”) on June 23,
2023 based on a shareholder request from its shareholder, Berkeley Global, LLC(“Berkeley Global”), received on March 17, 2023.
The EGM agenda is scheduled to include Berkeley Global’s proposals from its
shareholder request as well as Ichigo Office’s proposals. Ichigo Office’s Board ofDirectors has carefully reviewed Berkeley Global’s proposals and unanimously objects
to all of their proposals. For details, please refer to the May 25, 2023 release“Withdrawal of Ichigo Trust’s Proposals, Proposed Amendments to Articles ofIncorporation and Nomination of Directors, and Ichigo Office’s Position on Berkeley
Global’s Proposals.”
Ichigo Office has sent Berkeley Global a list of questions regarding their shareholder
proposals as a reference for shareholders exercising their voting rights.
Please refer to the questionnaire below for the questions addressed to Berkeley Global.
If we receive a response from Berkeley Global, we will upload it on our website.
(Reference) “Withdrawal of Ichigo Trust’s Proposals, Proposed Amendments to Articlesof Incorporation and Nomination of Directors, and Ichigo Office’s Position on Berkeley
Global’s Proposals”
www.ichigooffice.co.jp/ir/news/news_file/file/IchigoOffice_20230525_EGM_Proposals_ENG.pdf

May 25, 2023

Dear Berkeley Global, LLC,
Ichigo Office REIT (“Ichigo Office”) will hold an Extraordinary Shareholder Meeting(EGM) at 4 p.m. on June 23, 2023 based on a shareholder request received from you on
March 17, 2023. The EGM agenda is scheduled to include your shareholder proposals
as well as Ichigo Office’s proposals. Ichigo Office’s Board of Directors is comprised ofindependent directors who have no relationship with Ichigo Office’s asset managementcompany or the Ichigo group. Upon careful review of your proposals under thisindependent governance system, Ichigo Office’s Board of Directors has decided thatyour proposals do not contribute to shareholder value and unanimously opposes all of
your proposals. For details, please refer to today’s release “Withdrawal of Ichigo Trust’s
Proposals, Proposed Amendments to Articles of Incorporation and Nomination ofDirectors, and Ichigo Office’s Position on Berkeley Global’s Proposals.”
Ichigo Office has prepared the following questionnaire regarding your shareholder
proposals as a reference for shareholders who will exercise their voting rights. Please
note that the following questions and your responses may be uploaded to the Ichigo
Office website.
1. Shareholder Proposal Background
By August 2022 you held over 3% of Ichigo Office shares, the amount required torequest a shareholder meeting. Ichigo Office received no contact from you until
February 2023 when you suddenly contacted Ichigo Office’s asset managementcompany, Ichigo Investment Advisors (IIA). At our second meeting on February 24,
2023, you proposed changes to the asset management fee structure and demanded aresponse by a given deadline without a clear or detailed rationale or explanation. IIA
shared your proposals with Ichigo Office’s Board of Directors and sent a response to
your proposal on March 10. In this response, Ichigo Office stated that “A constantreview of the asset management fee structure is important to driving shareholder value.
Please continue to provide us your candid opinion, including feedback on how to
improve the asset management fee structure, as a valued Ichigo Office shareholder.”(Japanese original, Ichigo Office translation) and conveyed that we looked forward toongoing discussions about how best to increase shareholder value.
Unfortunately, you chose to cease constructive dialog, and on March 17, 2023, Ichigo
Office received your shareholder request by content-certified mail.
1) You are a part of Star Asia Group, as is Star Asia Investment Management Co., Ltd.,the asset management company of Star Asia Investment Corporation, a competitorof Ichigo Office. Please explain why you acquired shares of Ichigo Office, acompetitor. Please also explain why you acquired a stake of just over 3%, theminimum amount required to request a shareholder meeting.
2) Please explain why, despite being a major shareholder and ultimately making
shareholder proposals, you did not contact Ichigo Office after the April 2022 andOctober 2022 fiscal period earnings announcements.
3) Please explain why, as a major shareholder who initially made no effort to contactus, you waited until you had just over six consecutive months of ownership – theminimum period required to request a shareholder meeting – before suddenly
contacting Ichigo Office.
4) Please explain why, after waiting the six consecutive months of ownership required1

to request a shareholder meeting, you spent only one month engaging with Ichigo
Office before suddenly cutting off constructive dialog and issuing your list ofshareholder proposals.
5) We understand that typically investors who wish to engage constructively withcompanies on shareholder value will prepare a variety of analyses beforehand inorder to allow for deep, constructive discussions. However, Ichigo Office neverreceived any such materials from you. Considering that you disclosed a 24-pagepresentation explaining your position immediately following your shareholder
proposals, Ichigo Office believes that you could have explained in more detail therationale for your position at our meetings. Please explain why you did not provide
any explanations based on such materials.
2. Questions Regarding Shareholder Proposals
I. Executive Director Candidate
Regarding your proposal to appoint Mr. Sugihara, the Manager of your company, asIchigo Office’s Executive Director, we understand that Star Asia Investment
Corporation (“SAR”), which is managed by the Star Asia Group to which BG alsobelongs, competes for investments with Ichigo Office. This appears to constitute aconflict of interest. Mr. Sugihara had been the manager of SAR until very recently, andpresumably he has a strong relationship with SAR. Considering these circumstances, webelieve that if Mr. Sugihara becomes an Executive Director of Ichigo Office, he will bein a position to potentially undermine Ichigo Office’s shareholder value. Please let us
know your thoughts on this. (Please note that this question overlaps with one we asked
Mr. Sugihara at his meeting with Ichigo Office Directors; we are asking the question
again for the benefit of our shareholders who will exercise their voting rights.)
II. Asset Management Fee Structure1) Your call for “an asset management fee closely linked to shareholders’ interests” isconsistent with the objective of Ichigo Office and IIA, and our current no fixed fee,
performance fee-only structure is fully aligned with this concept. Please explain to us
your belief that our current no fixed fee, performance fee-only structure is not “highlylinked to shareholders’ interests.”2) Although you claim that Ichigo Office’s asset management fee is high, our asset
management fee structure is directly linked to the earnings of Ichigo Office: the fee
increases when performance is high and decreases when performance is low.
Meanwhile, your proposed asset management fee structure (and the one adopted bySAR) is an asset-size based structure that generates a fee regardless of profitability. We
believe that this will result in the exact opposite of what Ichigo Office considers to be of“shareholder interest.” Please explain in detail how your proposal is consistent withyour company’s definition of “shareholder interest.”
III. Public Offering
1) You criticize Ichigo Office for not conducting a public offering for the past sevenyears. Ichigo Office believes that shareholder value is not determined by the presence orabsence of public offerings, but rather by earnings growth. As for the five public
offerings that SAR conducted in the six years from the fiscal period ending January
2017 to the fiscal period ending July 2022, the average annual DPS growth rate during
this period was -4.75%. It appears that SAR damaged shareholder value by undertaking
public offerings that failed to consider dilution. Meanwhile, during the period fromApril 2017 to October 2022, roughly the same period, the average annual growth rate ofIchigo Office’s DPS was +3.43%. Please explain the rationale for criticizing Ichigo
Office for not conducting public offerings during that period.
22) Ichigo Office has continued its initiatives to maximize shareholder value after its last
public offering conducted in May 2016, such as the acquisition of 16 assets totaling JPY
43,490 million (+22.8% vs. October 2016), and its acquisition price-based AUM andappraisal value-based AUM have grown +JPY 21,149 million (+11%) and +JPY 48,263
million (+23%) respectively. In addition, we have obtained a credit rating (which wassubsequently upgraded to A+), and have been included in a global index, and we believethat we are steadily growing our profit and shareholder value. Ichigo Office’s returns
have significantly exceeded the TSE REIT Index, as per below.
Ichigo Office Total Returns & Outperformance vs. TSE REIT Index
1-year+9.73%+13.11%

Ichigo Office Total Returns
Outperformance vs. TSE REIT Index

3-year
+46.97%+17.16%10-year+129.23%+62.52%(Note 1) As of March 17, 2023, the date of Berkeley Global’s EGM request(Note 2) Total Returns: Returns (Re-invested Dividends and Capital Gains) divided by
Investment Amount (Share Price)
Source: Bloomberg data
Our mission is to maximize shareholder value. Please explain once again why you insist
that a public offering should be conducted, regardless of Ichigo Office’s outperformanceas indicated above, even if it undermines current shareholder value.

3