{"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_0006.txt","chunk_index":6,"documents_referenced":["內政部99年函釋","臺北市土地使用分區管制規則第80條之三","臺北市都市計畫施行自治條例第25條","臺南市主要計畫（99年）","臺南市都市計畫（99年5月）","都市更新條例","都市計畫法","都市計畫法第24條","都市計畫法第26條","高雄市都市計畫施行細則"],"end_seconds":2070,"keywords":["主要計畫","京華城案","依法行政","容積獎勵","法規命令","濫權","細部計畫","通盤檢討"],"legal_issues":["內政部99年函釋之解釋適用","容積獎勵之法定依據（主要計畫、通盤檢討、自治條例等）","細部計畫是否具有創設容積獎勵之法律權限","行政行為之彈性與濫權之界限"],"legal_issues_raw":["細部計畫是否具有創設容積獎勵之法律權限","容積獎勵之法定依據（主要計畫、通盤檢討、自治條例等）","行政行為之彈性與濫權之界限","內政部99年函釋之解釋適用"],"participants":["論述者","辯護人"],"participants_raw":["論述者（檢察官或法官）","辯護人（被提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0006","session_date":"2025-12-15","session_id":"CXKiBIamLC4","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":1770,"summary":"本段文字為檢方或法官針對容積獎勵法律依據之論述。重點在於區分「合法之容積獎勵」與「京華城案」之差異。論述指出，其他案例（如臺北、臺南之案例）之容積獎勵均有法律、主要計畫、通盤檢討或自治條例等法定依據，而京華城案之細部計畫在缺乏任何法律授權或上位計畫依據的情況下，直接訂定三項容積獎勵專案，涉嫌逾越權限。針對辯護人引用之內政部99年函釋，論述者認為該函釋僅提及依法定程序納入計畫書，並未賦予細部計畫可為單一物件創設容積獎勵之權限。","video_id":"CXKiBIamLC4","raw_text_key":"text/CXKiBIamLC4/raw/chunk_0006.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/CXKiBIamLC4/cleaned/chunk_0006.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0006","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0006/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0006/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0006/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"}}