非法人團體之當事人能力與當事人適格之要件、準據不同，應分別判定。而在非法人團體及構成員均有當事人能力與當事人適格時，原告得基於程序選擇權衡量個案實體利益及程序利益後選擇決定列何人為當事人。在非法人團體作為當事人所進行之訴訟，有關訴訟標的之權利義務關係在實體法上之主體係構成員全體，非法人團體係以訴訟擔當人身分進行訴訟，判決效力應及於全體構成員。但得作為執行標的之責任財產範圍，在非法人社團之情形，應僅以社團財產為限。而在合夥團體，向來實務承認就合夥債權債務關係所為之判決，得直接對於合夥人個人財產予以執行力見解，則有對於合夥人個人欠缺程序保障之疑慮。合夥人個人依民法第六八一條於合夥財產不足時所負之連帶責任，並非合夥團體所進行訴訟之訴訟標的，因此，對於合夥人所生之判決效力僅及於合夥債權債務關係，而不宜將判決效力（包括既判力或執行力）擴張及於合夥人個人所負之連帶責任。至於公寓大廈管理委員會具有合夥及非法人社團之部分特徵，屬於中間型態之無權利能力團體，宜視訴訟標的之權利義務關係，分別判定其既判力及執行力之範圍。 This paper analyses the capacity to be a party to legal proceedings, a party’s standing to bring suit in a particular dispute of an unincorporated association and the effects of the judgment of a suit. An unincorporated association has no legal capacity of substantive law but has the capacity to be a party to legal proceedings and to stand on behalf of its members. However, the capacity to be a party and the standing to bring suit should be determined separately for they have different elements. Based on the theory of procedural option rights, when an unincorporated association and its members have both party capacity and standing to sue, the plaintiff has the right to select an association as a sole de-fendant or all members as multiple defendants by weighing the procedural interests against the material interests. Partnerships or apartment building management committees are examples of unincorporated associations. The judgment against a partnership is not only binding on the parties but also on all partners who did not appear as parties in the suit. However, because the subject matter of a suit against partnership is different from a suit against partners for joint liability, the creditor may not execute a judgment of partnership against the individual property of the partner.