{"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_0011.txt","chunk_index":11,"documents_referenced":["最高行政法院 103 年判字第 1321 號判決","許宗力大法官協同意見書","都市計畫法第 13 條、第 24 條、第 26 條、第 27 條","釋字第 742 號解釋"],"end_seconds":3545,"keywords":["京華城","個別變更","容積獎勵","法規命令","細部計畫","行政處分","都市計畫法"],"legal_issues":["公務員在行政體系內就違法性提出提醒之責任與限度","容積獎勵之法令依據及其合法性","行政處分與法規命令之區分（普遍性/抽象性 vs. 個別性/具體性）","都市計畫中「個別變更之細部計畫」之法律性質（行政處分 vs. 行政法規）"],"legal_issues_raw":["公務員在行政體系內就違法性提出提醒之責任與限度","都市計畫中「個別變更之細部計畫」之法律性質（行政處分 vs. 行政法規）","容積獎勵之法令依據及其合法性","行政處分與法規命令之區分（普遍性/抽象性 vs. 個別性/具體性）"],"participants":["公務員","柯文哲","檢察官/法官（發言者）","辯護人","陸正義律師"],"participants_raw":["檢察官/法官（發言者）","辯護人（被提及）","公務員（被提及）","柯文哲（被提及）","陸正義律師（被提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0011","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":3245,"summary":"本段文字為法庭辯論紀錄，主要針對被告（柯文哲）及其辯護人的主張進行反駁。重點在於討論公務員在撰寫意見書時的壓力與提醒責任、區分「行政法規」與「行政處分」的法律性質，並論證本案中的細部計畫屬於針對特定對象（京華城公司）的行政處分，而非可作為容積獎勵依據的法規，藉此質疑辯方關於容積獎勵合法性的主張。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0011.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0011.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0011","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0011/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0011/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0011/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/HXqeVOdrDrs","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}