{"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":["內政部函釋（關於建造執照變更設計）","圖管條例","都市計畫法第24條","陳情要點"],"end_seconds":6790,"keywords":["一次性使用","京華城","圖利","容積獎勵","樓地板面積","送研議","都市計畫法"],"legal_issues":["依據《都市計畫法》第24條申請容積獎勵之合法性與受理權限","樓地板面積保障是否應採取「一次性使用」之解釋","送交研議之行政行為是否違背法令或構成圖利","陳情要點是否屬於具有法律效力的行政命令"],"legal_issues_raw":["樓地板面積保障是否應採取「一次性使用」之解釋","送交研議之行政行為是否違背法令或構成圖利","陳情要點是否屬於具有法律效力的行政命令","依據《都市計畫法》第24條申請容積獎勵之合法性與受理權限"],"participants":["劉世芳（內政部長）","張景深","林欽榮","楊智勝","白仁德"],"participants_raw":["張景深（證人）","林欽榮","白仁德（證人）","楊智勝（科長/證人）","劉世芳（內政部長）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0022","session_date":"2025-12-16","session_id":"IB49wmaJWtw","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":6490,"summary":"本段文字為針對京華城案之辯護或陳述，主要針對四個爭點進行說明：第一，強調計畫變更對市民有益且有對價回饋；第二，爭議樓地板面積保障是否為「一次性使用」，質疑林欽榮引用內政部函釋混淆了建管與都市計畫程序；第三，主張送交研議並無違背法令，且符合過去10年之行政慣例，並否認陳情要點具備行政命令效力，因此不構成圖利；第四，主張依據《都市計畫法》第24條申請容積獎勵屬權利人之程序選擇權，市府應予受理，且內政部部長亦表示只要符合公益與必要性並不反對。","video_id":"IB49wmaJWtw","raw_text_key":"text/IB49wmaJWtw/raw/chunk_0022.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/IB49wmaJWtw/cleaned/chunk_0022.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0022","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0022/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0022/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0022/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/IB49wmaJWtw","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}