{"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_0031.txt","chunk_index":31,"documents_referenced":["圖管條例","大眾捷運法","論告書","起訴書","都市計畫法（特別是第22條、第24條）"],"end_seconds":9445,"keywords":["一次性保障","主要計畫","容積獎勵","法律保留","京華城公司","細部計畫","都市計畫法"],"legal_issues":["《都市計畫法》第24條細部計畫變更申請之權利是否受訴訟結果影響","地方自治權於都市計畫審議之適用","容積獎勵之法律保留原則及其適用層級（主要計畫 vs. 細部計畫）","細部計畫定容積獎勵是否需主要計畫授權之法律爭議"],"legal_issues_raw":["《都市計畫法》第24條細部計畫變更申請之權利是否受訴訟結果影響","容積獎勵之法律保留原則及其適用層級（主要計畫 vs. 細部計畫）","細部計畫定容積獎勵是否需主要計畫授權之法律爭議","地方自治權於都市計畫審議之適用"],"participants":["檢察官","辯方（發言者）","陳志明"],"participants_raw":["辯方（發言者）","檢察官（被提及）","陳志明秘書長（被提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0031","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":9145,"summary":"辯方針對京華城公司申請容積獎勵之合法性進行辯論，主張依據《都市計畫法》第24條提出細部計畫變更之權利，與針對120284號案件之行政救濟（一次性保障）屬平行關係，互不影響。同時，辯方質疑檢察官對於「法律保留」原則之認定標準反覆且不一致，並引用秘書長陳志明之觀點，說明主要計畫與細部計畫之功能差異及地方自治權之關聯，反駁檢方認為細部計畫定容積獎勵必須由主要計畫授權之主張。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0031.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0031.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0031","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0031/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0031/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0031/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"}}