{"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_0005.txt","chunk_index":5,"documents_referenced":["大法官釋字第742號解釋","李德權之文章《都市更新容積獎勵制度的謬誤與導正：以臺北市為例》","都市更新條例第65條","都市計畫法第24條、第27條","都市計畫法高雄市施行細則第24條、第24條之3"],"end_seconds":1775,"keywords":["主要計畫","容積獎勵","法律保留原則","法律優位原則","行政處分","通盤檢討","都市更新"],"legal_issues":["「主要計畫通盤檢討」與「個別變更主要計畫」在法律性質上的區分（法規命令 vs. 行政處分）","容積獎勵之法定授權依據（如都市更新條例第65條）","容積獎勵是否需符合法律保留原則與法律優位原則"],"legal_issues_raw":["容積獎勵是否需符合法律保留原則與法律優位原則","「主要計畫通盤檢討」與「個別變更主要計畫」在法律性質上的區分（法規命令 vs. 行政處分）","容積獎勵之法定授權依據（如都市更新條例第65條）"],"participants":["李德權","法官/檢察官（發言者）","辯護人"],"participants_raw":["法官/檢察官（發言者）","辯護人（被提及）","李德權（被提及之專家/作者）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0005","session_date":"2025-12-15","session_id":"CXKiBIamLC4","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":1475,"summary":"本段文字討論容積獎勵的法律依據，強調容積獎勵涉及人民財產權，必須符合「法律保留原則」與「法律優位原則」。文中區分了「主要計畫通盤檢討」（屬法規命令，可訂定容積獎勵）與「個別變更主要計畫」（屬行政處分，若無法律授權則不能給予容積獎勵）。隨後，針對辯護人提出的四個案例（文華東方案、南港輪胎工廠案、南港工業區案、雅萬案）進行反駁，指出這些案例均有既有的通盤檢討或法律授權（如都更條例），而非單純透過個別變更主要計畫來創設獎勵，藉此證明本案缺乏法定依據之主張。","video_id":"CXKiBIamLC4","raw_text_key":"text/CXKiBIamLC4/raw/chunk_0005.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/CXKiBIamLC4/cleaned/chunk_0005.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0005","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0005/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0005/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0005/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"}}