{"case_id":"113年度金訴字第51號","case_number":"113年度金訴字第51號","chunk_filename":"chunk_0010.txt","chunk_index":10,"documents_referenced":["110年細部計畫修正案","公訴書","檢察官論告書","行政法院判決書","都市計畫法（第26條、第27條）"],"end_seconds":3250,"keywords":["京華城案","個案變更","允建樓地板面積","細部計畫","行政契約","行政法院","都市計畫法"],"legal_issues":["120,284.39平方公尺允建樓地板面積是否屬於「一次性保障」","京華城案細部計畫變更之合法性","行政契約之性質及其是否可依都市計畫法第26、27條進行變更","行政法院對本案先前相關訴訟之判決效力"],"legal_issues_raw":["京華城案細部計畫變更之合法性","120,284.39平方公尺允建樓地板面積是否屬於「一次性保障」","行政契約之性質及其是否可依都市計畫法第26、27條進行變更","行政法院對本案先前相關訴訟之判決效力"],"participants":["合議庭","立婷","辯護律師","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","合議庭（公訴檢察官）","立婷（公訴檢察官）","黃景茂（被告）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0010","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":2950,"summary":"辯護律師針對被告黃景茂之無罪主張進行陳述。律師認為本案涉及複雜的法律議題與行政程序，重點在於京華城案中關於「120,284.39平方公尺允建樓地板面積」的認定。律師指出，行政法院先前已多次判決原告（京華城）敗訴，且根據都市計畫法，相關計畫可經由個案變更而調整，因此不應將其視為不可變動的權利，旨在反駁檢方關於該面積為「一次性保障」且細部計畫違法的論點。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0010.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0010.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0010","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0010/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0010/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0010/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/7SD1Ue5QAiE","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}