{"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_0033.txt","chunk_index":33,"documents_referenced":["最高行政法院判決（至七四二號）","都市計畫法第22條","都市計畫法第24條"],"end_seconds":10035,"keywords":["個案變更","容積獎勵","法規命令","細部計畫","行政處分","通盤檢討","都市計畫法"],"legal_issues":["個案變更與通盤檢討在法律性質上（法規命令 vs 行政處分）是否影響容積獎勵之給予","容積獎勵之對價性與都委會之裁量權","都市計畫法第24條關於個案申請細部計畫與容積獎勵之適用性"],"legal_issues_raw":["都市計畫法第24條關於個案申請細部計畫與容積獎勵之適用性","個案變更與通盤檢討在法律性質上（法規命令 vs 行政處分）是否影響容積獎勵之給予","容積獎勵之對價性與都委會之裁量權"],"participants":["檢察官","辯方律師/代理人","都委會"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師/代理人","都委會執行秘書（證人，提及）","檢察官（提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0033","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":9735,"summary":"辯方針對個案給予容積獎勵之合法性進行辯護，主張都市計畫法第24條之設計目的即在於允許針對個別土地利用需求進行「量身打造」的細部計畫，而非必須依循通案。同時，針對檢察官主張僅有「通盤檢討」之法規命令方能給予容積獎勵的觀點，辯方引用最高行政法院判決及相關案例，反駁通盤檢討之變更內容亦可能被認定為行政處分，以此質疑檢方對法規性質之認定。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0033.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0033.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0033","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0033/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0033/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0033/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"}}