[Case] Zhang signed a loan contract with Li, and Zhang borrowed 500,000 yuan from Li. In the contract, Lin signed as a guarantor. Later, Zhang was sentenced by the court for fraud. The judgment found that Zhang's borrowing from Li was a criminal act. At the same time, it was decided to recover 500,000 yuan from Zhang's fraud and return it to the victim Li. After the judgment came into effect, Li sued Lin to the court and asked Lin to bear the liability for compensation for the invalid guarantee. The first opinion is that the loan contract signed by Zhang and Li is invalid, and whether Lin is at fault is examined. If there is a fault, he will bear the corresponding liability for compensation. If there is no fault, the plaintiff's claim will be rejected. The second opinion is that the contract between Zhang and Li is not a general invalid contract, but an illegal contract. The guarantor shall bear civil liability on the premise that the losses caused by the invalid main contract are still within the scope of legal protection. Because Zhang is a fraud, the court has decided to recover 500,000 yuan from Li and return it to Li in criminal judgment. Although the guarantor Lin participated in the signing of the main contract, because the main contract is illegal, whether the guarantor Lin bears the guarantee responsibility is not within the scope of civil litigation. [Analysis] The author agrees with the first opinion. The evaluation of contract validity is generally divided into validity, invalidity and validity to be determined. Article 44 of the Contract Law stipulates that "a legally established contract shall come into effect upon its establishment", and a valid contract must be the true intention of both parties. In this case, one party indicated by means of contract fraud that the cheated person did not really mean to sign the contract. If the fraud is minor and belongs to general contract fraud, the deceived person may choose to terminate or modify the contract or terminate the contract. If the fraudster is investigated for criminal responsibility, the court decides to recover the stolen money, which shows that the validity of the contract has been denied, and whether the guarantor should bear the responsibility of invalid guarantee depends on whether he is at fault in the conclusion of the contract. According to Article 8 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Guarantee Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), "If the main contract is invalid and the guarantee contract is invalid, and the guarantor is not at fault, the guarantor will not bear civil liability; If the guarantor is at fault, the part that the guarantor bears civil liability shall not exceed one third of the part that the debtor cannot pay off. " To sum up, the author believes that if the guarantor Lin is found to be at fault after trial by the court, he will bear the corresponding liability for compensation. If there is no fault, the plaintiff's claim will be rejected. Xinyu Intermediate People's Court Lin Hong