{"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_0003.txt","chunk_index":3,"documents_referenced":["北高行判決","大法官釋字第四四三號解釋","監察院報告","都市計畫法第二十四條"],"end_seconds":1185,"keywords":["京華城","容積獎勵","樓地板面積","權力分立","法律保留原則","給付行政","都市計畫變更"],"legal_issues":["公共資源分配之公平性與法律授權","容積獎勵申請之正當性（是否僅為恢復樓地板面積之替代方案）","法律保留原則（Legal Reservation）於給付行政之適用","行政機關之依法行政原則","都市計畫變更之合法性"],"legal_issues_raw":["都市計畫變更之合法性","容積獎勵申請之正當性（是否僅為恢復樓地板面積之替代方案）","法律保留原則（Legal Reservation）於給付行政之適用","行政機關之依法行政原則","公共資源分配之公平性與法律授權"],"participants":["張景森","檢察官","沈慶京","監察院","京華城公司"],"participants_raw":["檢察官","沈慶京","張景森","監察院","京華城公司"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0003","session_date":"2025-12-15","session_id":"CXKiBIamLC4","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":885,"summary":"本段內容主要討論京華城公司爭取恢復樓地板面積（12,0284平米）之爭議，以及其後轉而申請都市計畫變更以獲取20%容積獎勵的合法性。檢察官與監察院認為，將「恢復面積」之期待利益轉換為「容積獎勵」缺乏正當性。隨後，論述進入法律分析階段，探討都市計畫變更是否違反「法律保留原則」，強調行政機關無論是限制權利或分配公共資源（給付行政），均須有法律授權以防止濫權。","video_id":"CXKiBIamLC4","raw_text_key":"text/CXKiBIamLC4/raw/chunk_0003.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/CXKiBIamLC4/cleaned/chunk_0003.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0003","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0003/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0003/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0003/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/CXKiBIamLC4","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}