{"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_0034.txt","chunk_index":34,"documents_referenced":["中泰賓館（文化東方）案例相關對話截圖","最高行政法院判決","臺北市政府都委會第六一一次委員會決議","都市計畫法第二十二條第一項"],"end_seconds":10330,"keywords":["主細分離","主要計畫","圖管條例","容積獎勵","細部計畫","都市計畫法"],"legal_issues":["細部計畫變更給予容積獎勵是否必須經過主要計畫授權或通盤檢討","行政法上「法規命令」與「行政處分」之定性是否影響容積獎勵之給予","都市計畫法第二十二條第一項關於細部計畫訂定容積率及容積獎勵之權限"],"legal_issues_raw":["都市計畫法第二十二條第一項關於細部計畫訂定容積率及容積獎勵之權限","行政法上「法規命令」與「行政處分」之定性是否影響容積獎勵之給予","細部計畫變更給予容積獎勵是否必須經過主要計畫授權或通盤檢討"],"participants":["檢察官","辯護人","陳志明"],"participants_raw":["辯護人","檢察官","陳志明（秘書長，證人）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0034","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":10030,"summary":"辯方針對都市計畫法第二十二條之容積獎勵權限進行辯論，主張細部計畫可獨立定容積獎勵，無需區分法規命令或行政處分，亦無需主要計畫授權。並透過「中泰賓館（文化東方）」及「臺北好好看」兩個案例，反駁檢察官關於容積獎勵必須依據主要計畫或圖管條例之主張，強調實務上存在以細部計畫變更給予容積獎勵之先例。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0034.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0034.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0034","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0034/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0034/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0034/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"}}