{"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_0004.txt","chunk_index":4,"documents_referenced":["《土管條例》（都市計畫法相關條例）第 80 條之二","最高法院、最高行政法院 108 年臺上字第 626 號判決"],"end_seconds":1480,"keywords":["土管條例","容積獎勵","容積率","對價性","法律保留原則","給付行政","都市計畫"],"legal_issues":["容積獎勵之對價性與公共利益之權衡","容積獎勵是否屬於需要法律保留之重大事項","法律保留原則之適用（給付行政與干預行政）","都市計畫（細部計畫）與上位計畫（主要計畫）及法律之抵觸問題"],"legal_issues_raw":["法律保留原則之適用（給付行政與干預行政）","都市計畫（細部計畫）與上位計畫（主要計畫）及法律之抵觸問題","容積獎勵是否屬於需要法律保留之重大事項","容積獎勵之對價性與公共利益之權衡"],"participants":["辯護人"],"participants_raw":["辯護人"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0004","session_date":"2025-12-15","session_id":"CXKiBIamLC4","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":1180,"summary":"辯護人針對都市計畫中的容積獎勵制度進行法律論述，強調給付行政與干預行政必須符合「法律保留原則」。文中詳細說明容積率的定義及其對都市環境的影響，並分析《土管條例》中關於容積獎勵的對價性要求（如淨利益回饋 70%），主張容積獎勵涉及重大公共利益與權利分配，應有明確的法律授權依據，而非僅由行政機關裁量。","video_id":"CXKiBIamLC4","raw_text_key":"text/CXKiBIamLC4/raw/chunk_0004.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/CXKiBIamLC4/cleaned/chunk_0004.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0004","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0004/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0004/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0004/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"}}