The fictitious validity of the lease contract was found invalid when borrowing in the name of the leased house. Recently, the People's Court of Nanhai District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province heard a lease contract dispute, and found that Zhu, the "tenant", borrowed money in the name of the leased house. The two parties did not agree on the lease, so the lease contract was invalid. On January 13, 2020, Liang and his wife signed a lease contract with Zhu, which agreed to lease the house involved to Zhu, with a building area of 135.22 square meters, a 7 year lease term and a total rent of 80000 yuan. Afterwards, Zhu paid 80000 yuan in a lump sum. In April 2021, Mr. Zhu learned that the house involved in the case was closed down, and filed a lawsuit to the court to request the termination of the lease contract. He asked the "landlord" Liang and his wife to return the remaining rent of 65720 yuan, pay liquidated damages of 19716 yuan as agreed in the contract, and bear a lawyer's fee of 12000 yuan. Liang and his wife argued that there was no lease contract between them. In 2020, they applied for a loan from a loan company due to capital problems. Shortly afterwards, Zhu, a staff member of the loan company, contacted them and proposed to lend them 80000 yuan in the form of "lease loan". On the day of borrowing, Zhu received "beheading interest" and actually only lent 61500 yuan. Since then, Zhu did not live or sublet, and the couple has been living in the house involved. In addition, Liang and his wife, according to Zhu's instructions, paid 2500 yuan of "rent" each month instead of Xu as a repayment. Currently, 24500 yuan has been repaid. During the court hearing, Zhu said that he was engaged in the business of subleasing second-hand houses. He rented the houses at low prices and subleased them at high prices to earn the price difference. The houses involved in the case had been subleased to someone outside the case, Xu. After hearing, the Nanhai District Court held that after the signing of the lease contract, Zhu claimed that he had sublet the house to Xu, but he had never been to the house involved in the case, did not know whether Xu actually lived in the house, and did not charge Xu rent and other related fees, which obviously did not conform to the rules of daily life experience. In the WeChat chat records of both parties, the words "investment company" appeared many times, and Zhu also failed to give a reasonable explanation. The house involved in the case has always been occupied by Liang and his wife, and the monthly rent is obviously lower than the market price. The court believed that the two parties did not agree to lease the house, and the lease contract involved in the case was not the expression of the real intention of both parties, which should be invalid. The court decided to reject all the litigation requests of Zhu. Zhu appealed against this. The court of second instance ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment. The judge said that Article 680 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that usurious lending is prohibited, and the interest rate of loans shall not violate the relevant provisions of the state. Some companies and individuals, for the purpose of making profits, fail to obtain the loan qualification according to law and provide loans to unspecified objects of the society to earn high interest, which belongs to professional lending. If the circumstances are serious, it constitutes a crime. Lenders usually take certain measures to cover up their illegal profit-making activities, such as using multiple WeChat accounts to play the roles of "lessee" and "sub lessee", and making up "chat scenes" for rent recovery and water and electricity charges, which are highly hidden. The court shall make a judgment in accordance with the law, taking into account the actual lease situation, lease agreement, whether the rent is reasonable, the way of rent payment, the payment of water and electricity charges, and the evidentiary force. If double