{"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_0022.txt","chunk_index":22,"documents_referenced":["大法官釋字第七七四號解釋","大法官釋字第七四二號解釋","行政訴訟法（民國109年增訂都市計畫審查程序專章）","都市計畫主要計畫","都市計畫細部計畫","都市設計科變遷紀錄","高雄市都市計畫實施細則"],"end_seconds":6790,"keywords":["容積獎勵","對價性","法源基礎","行政救濟","通盤檢討","都委會","都市計畫"],"legal_issues":["主要計畫與細部計畫在法律性質上的區分（法規性質之爭議）","行政救濟於行政訴訟法中關於都市計畫審查程序之適用","都市計畫中容積獎勵的法源依據之認定","都市設計審議過程是否能證明本案具備對價性"],"legal_issues_raw":["都市計畫中容積獎勵的法源依據之認定","主要計畫與細部計畫在法律性質上的區分（法規性質之爭議）","行政救濟於行政訴訟法中關於都市計畫審查程序之適用","都市設計審議過程是否能證明本案具備對價性"],"participants":["廖簡","彭振聲","林之瑜","柯文哲","檢察官","辯方律師"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","檢察官 (被提及)","廖簡法官 (被提及)","柯文哲 (被提及)","彭振聲 (被提及)","林之瑜 (證人/被提及)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0022","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":6490,"summary":"辯方針對都市計畫容積獎勵的法源依據提出質疑，認為檢察官在多個案例（如東方文華、南港輪胎、南港策略工業區、亞灣2.0、台南防治案、台南中西區案）中無法明確說明容積獎勵的具體法律依據。同時，辯方主張只要經過都委會法定程序審議給予獎勵即具備法源基礎，並針對都市設計科的變遷紀錄提出反駁，強調相關審議過程顯示本案具備對價性，且相關主管及委員均同意通過審議。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0022.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0022.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0022","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0022/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0022/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0022/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"}}