Qin borrowed money from Company C, and the loan contract between the two parties will be agreed upon as the place of contract signing by the Beijing XX court, which has no relation to the actual place of signing, performance, residence, or business location of both parties. It is also agreed that any disputes between the two parties will be under the jurisdiction of the Beijing XX court. Later, Qin stopped repaying and Company C filed a lawsuit with the Beijing XX Court.

The Beijing XX court held that the place of signing stated in the loan contract was not a place that was actually related to the dispute, such as the domicile of both parties. Therefore, the jurisdiction clause stipulated in the loan contract was invalid. The Beijing XX court then made a ruling and transferred the case to the Hebei XX court (the court of Qin's domicile) for handling.

The court of XX in Hebei Province deemed the transfer inappropriate and reported it to the Higher People's Court of Hebei Province. The Higher People's Court of Hebei Province believes that the jurisdiction clause of the loan contract is legal and effective. After consultation with the Beijing Higher People's Court, it was unsuccessful and reported to the Supreme People's Court for designated jurisdiction.

The Supreme People's Court believes that the explicit choice of Beijing XX Court jurisdiction in the loan contract is a clear agreement made by both parties in the relevant contract. However, in the absence of evidence to prove the actual connection between Beijing XX District and the dispute in this case, Beijing XX Court is deemed the jurisdictional court of this case, which will inevitably result in a large number of "out of town" cases entering the agreed court through agreement jurisdiction, disrupting the normal public law order of civil litigation jurisdiction. Therefore, the agreement jurisdiction clause in this case is invalid. According to Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Law, lawsuits arising from contract disputes shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court in the place where the defendant resides or where the contract is performed. In this case, the disputed subject matter is the payment of currency. The court located in the place where the receiving party, Company C, is located, as the people's court where the contract is performed, and the court located in the domicile of Mr. Qin in Hebei Province, have jurisdiction over this case. This case is a dispute over a financial loan contract. One party of the lender has a fixed place of residence, and there are many borrowers with scattered places of residence similar to the situation in this case. In order to unify the judgment scale and serve financial supervision, it is advisable to have the jurisdiction of the court where Company C is located in this case.

According to Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Law, "The parties to a contract or other property rights dispute may agree in writing to choose the people's court with actual connection to the dispute, such as the defendant's domicile, the place of performance of the contract, the place of signing the contract, the plaintiff's domicile, or the location of the subject matter, but shall not violate the provisions of this Law on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction." Based on the aforementioned cases, the court with jurisdiction stipulated in the contract shall pay attention to the people's court with actual connection to the dispute and shall not violate the provisions of hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction, otherwise, it may be deemed an invalid agreement.