{"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_0011.txt","chunk_index":11,"documents_referenced":["103年行政訴訟判決書","組織章程","臺北地政事務所之鑑定結果（假扣押土地相關）","都委會會議勘驗記錄","都市計畫法（第24條、第27條）","都更條例"],"end_seconds":3545,"keywords":["京華城","容積獎勵","對價性","細部計畫","行政處分","行政訴訟","都委會"],"legal_issues":["容積獎勵之對價性是否不足（30億回饋與120億價值之爭議）","細部計畫是否具有行政處分之性質","細部計畫變更是否違法準用都更條例之獎勵專案","都委會決議之程序正義與表決方式是否合法","都市計畫法第24條與第27條之審議程序差異"],"legal_issues_raw":["都委會決議之程序正義與表決方式是否合法","容積獎勵之對價性是否不足（30億回饋與120億價值之爭議）","細部計畫變更是否違法準用都更條例之獎勵專案","都市計畫法第24條與第27條之審議程序差異","細部計畫是否具有行政處分之性質"],"participants":["合議庭","檢察官","沈慶京","許忠利前院長","辯護律師（發言者）"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師（發言者）","檢察官（被提及）","沈慶京（被提及）","合議庭（被提及）","許忠利前院長（被提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0011","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":3245,"summary":"本段逐字稿主要討論京華城案中關於110年細部計畫變更之合法性。辯方分析行政訴訟之先例，主張該計畫之決議程序符合正當程序、表決方式合法且具判斷餘地，並針對容積獎勵之對價性進行反駁，認為應以同業利潤計算而非單純以土地價值估算。此外，亦觸及細部計畫是否屬於行政處分之法律性質討論。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0011.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0011.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0011","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0011/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0011/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0011/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"}}