From the legal spirit, this person's guarantee is not his true meaning, and this contract is invalid.
Judging from the actual situation, loan companies generally do not adopt the guarantee method of "three people guarantee at the same time to take effect", so three people sign the guarantee separately, so it is not one! The loan company has sufficient legal materials, otherwise the loan company will not sue.
At the same time, this person can't come up with the material that "three people guarantee to take effect at the same time" or provide the material that "is not his true meaning", which is extremely unfavorable to him.
I suggest this person's responding strategy: break through the collusion between the loan company and the borrower. The materials can come from: the materials of qualitative fraud in the court of first instance; Defects in finding a loan company: is it approved by the state department to operate the loan? Is it legal to issue loans? Is it a usury? The loopholes between the loan contract and the guarantee contract, etc. At the same time, we can also get involved through some departments of state organs, and there may be unexpected gains!