{"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_0028.txt","chunk_index":28,"documents_referenced":["協議書","實價登錄交易紀錄","鑑價報告"],"end_seconds":8560,"keywords":["事後鑑價","京華城","公益空間","圖利","容積獎勵","實價登錄","綠建築"],"legal_issues":["容積獎勵之價值認定（事後鑑價 vs. 實價登錄）","是否構成圖利罪","行政行為之合理性與公益性認定"],"legal_issues_raw":["是否構成圖利罪","容積獎勵之價值認定（事後鑑價 vs. 實價登錄）","行政行為之合理性與公益性認定"],"participants":["檢察官","辯方律師"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","檢察官（被提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0028","session_date":"2025-12-17","session_id":"sO8SNz7mXis","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":8260,"summary":"辯方針對京華城案之圖利指控進行反駁，主張檢方採用的鑑價報告（120億）為事後鑑價且高估，應以當時實價登錄之交易價格（約58億）為準。同時詳細列舉京華城公司為取得容積獎勵所須承擔的成本，包括綠建築、智慧建築、耐震標章之建設費用（約54.68億）、提供公益空間永久使用權及繳納高額保證金，以此證明該協議並無圖利之實，且具有公益回饋。","video_id":"sO8SNz7mXis","raw_text_key":"text/sO8SNz7mXis/raw/chunk_0028.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/sO8SNz7mXis/cleaned/chunk_0028.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0028","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0028/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0028/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0028/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/sO8SNz7mXis","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}