{"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_0026.txt","chunk_index":26,"documents_referenced":["主要計畫","圖管條例第 83 條第一項","細部計畫","通盤檢討/訊刑變更文件","高雄市實地考察規定（第 24 條第一項）"],"end_seconds":7970,"keywords":["亞灣2.0","圖管條例","容積獎勵","差別待遇","法律授權","綠覆率","都市計畫"],"legal_issues":["公有地與私有地在行政審查上是否存在差別待遇（平等原則）","圖管條例第 83 條第一項關於綠地容積獎勵之適用範圍（既有綠地 vs. 新設綠覆率）","容積獎勵之法律授權依據是否充足","都市計畫（主要計畫、細部計畫、通盤檢討）是否能作為容積獎勵之授權依據"],"legal_issues_raw":["容積獎勵之法律授權依據是否充足","都市計畫（主要計畫、細部計畫、通盤檢討）是否能作為容積獎勵之授權依據","圖管條例第 83 條第一項關於綠地容積獎勵之適用範圍（既有綠地 vs. 新設綠覆率）","公有地與私有地在行政審查上是否存在差別待遇（平等原則）"],"participants":["甲官","發言人（律師或代理人）"],"participants_raw":["發言人（律師或代理人）","甲官（被提及之法官或官員）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0026","session_date":"2025-12-16","session_id":"IB49wmaJWtw","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":7670,"summary":"本段文字主要針對高雄市「亞灣 2.0」及其他開發案例（如林欽榮、南港等）之容積獎勵法律依據提出質疑。發言者主張相關容積獎勵缺乏明確法律授權，且批評相關機關在作證後迅速修正高雄市實地考察規定以補足法源，涉嫌前後矛盾。同時，針對綠覆率之法律依據（圖管條例第 83 條第一項）之適用性提出異議，並質疑公有地與私有地在容積獎勵審查上是否存在差別待遇。","video_id":"IB49wmaJWtw","raw_text_key":"text/IB49wmaJWtw/raw/chunk_0026.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/IB49wmaJWtw/cleaned/chunk_0026.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0026","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0026/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0026/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0026/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"}}