Have the soil removed? Or use it later?

We are currently building a single-family house (9m x 9.6m, no basement) where there used to be an old house. The old house was already demolished a few months ago.
Plot size approx. 1000m2.

We have to decide whether we want to remove the soil or keep it on our property.
It would be good to leave the soil on the property to avoid the additional costs (approx. 180 m3, 26 EUR per m3, approx. 5000 EUR) and later spread and reuse it in the garden.
But I think the "soil" is actually sand (from the company that demolished the old house). Therefore, it is not particularly suitable for further use in the garden.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of keeping the soil or having it removed?

Yes. For lawn. It likes it sandy. If necessary, help with some [Blaukorn] during sowing.

Really? The "Boden" does not look like "sanding Boden". It really looks like real sand! I am skeptical whether it is suitable for the lawn... There has already been a house on it for the last 80 years!!

There was already a house on it during the last 80 years!!

And the sand is much, much older. It doesn't matter if it was under a house.

Here a photo, just after the old house was demolished. The "ground" is really sand, I doubt it is suitable for lawn...

...?

Take this advice from an old country dweller: Spread this sand, then put a 5cm layer of topsoil on it – ask a gardener, they’ll provide that – then put the lawn in. When it starts to grow, fertilize. Great. Alternative: leave a corner without topsoil and plant marram grass in the sand (gardener!). That would also work.