{"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_0021.txt","chunk_index":21,"documents_referenced":["都委會審議紀錄/法定程序","都更容積獎勵專案","釋字第742號解釋"],"end_seconds":6495,"keywords":["容積獎勵","法規性質","細部計畫","通盤檢討","都委會","都市計畫","釋字742號"],"legal_issues":["容積獎勵是否違反法令之禁止或命令","都市計畫中「細部計畫」與「逕行變更」是否具有法規性質","釋字第742號解釋對於都市計畫法規性質之適用"],"legal_issues_raw":["容積獎勵是否違反法令之禁止或命令","都市計畫中「細部計畫」與「逕行變更」是否具有法規性質","釋字第742號解釋對於都市計畫法規性質之適用"],"participants":["林欽榮","楊智勝","檢察官","辯方（發言者）","鄭能"],"participants_raw":["辯方（發言者）","楊智勝（證人/科長）","檢察官（被提及）","鄭能（被提及）","林欽榮（被提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0021","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":6195,"summary":"本段內容主要針對容積獎勵的合法性以及都市計畫之法律性質進行辯論。辯方主張，本案容積獎勵未超過20%之法定上限，且在法律未禁止的情況下，依都委會法定程序審議給予容獎並不違法。此外，針對檢方認為僅有主要計畫與通盤檢討具法規性質的觀點，辯方引用釋字第742號解釋，主張所有經過都委會審議通過的都市計畫（含細部計畫、逕行變更）均具有法規性質，批評檢方的論點前後矛盾且曲解法律。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0021.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0021.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0021","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0021/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0021/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0021/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"}}