Net cold rent lease contract clause for real estate loan

Yes, as I said, the financial advisor expressed herself quite vaguely there, and the credit contract does not specify a deadline by which we have to submit the lease agreement.
Strictly speaking, it is stated under "Ergänzende Vereinbarungen":
"Payout-relevant conditions - The lease agreement for the mortgaged object with a net cold rent of at least xy EUR per month must be submitted."
As I read it, they actually wouldn't have to pay out if no lease agreement is submitted.
According to our advisor, the condition is NOT tied to the payout, so I assume the bank has some leeway but is contractually protected.

I fear it was simply poorly communicated, probably by both sides, because we didn't clearly say that it could also be the case that we might not find a tenant, and from the advisor's side, it sounded as if after the payout no one at the bank cares anymore.
As I said, it was not so important to us either because we wouldn't rely on the rent.
But to ask really plainly again... should we have the advisor feel this out, or should we handle it ourselves...?

Ahem, didn't you just claim that the condition applies after payout? But that would be the opposite of payout-relevant for me.

If there is nothing binding in the contract, I would be relaxed, otherwise see As I read it - and it doesn't matter what the bank says - there is no money without a rental contract.

This is how the financial advisor explained it to us. She said it was just a "soft" condition. I read the exact wording in the contract differently, but I’m not an expert, and in the end it might just be a pro-forma clause that usually has no consequences. In the end, I am definitely very annoyed now about the poor communication from both sides. Apparently, we did not make it clear enough that renting out was only an option for us, and the advisor kept telling us that it was not relevant...

I wouldn't rely on a consultant there. In the end, it probably doesn't matter whether you get the money from the bank or not. Or is it the consultant of the financing bank?

The only relevant thing is what is stated in the contract. And it is clearly stated there that you need a rental agreement, otherwise the bank does not have to pay out.

That’s how the financial advisor explained it to us. She said it was just a "soft" condition. I read the exact wording in the contract differently, but I’m not an expert, and in the end, it might well be more of a pro-forma clause that usually has no consequences. In the end, I’m definitely really annoyed now about the poor communication from both sides. Apparently, we didn’t make it clear enough that renting out was only an option for us, and the advisor always told us it was not relevant...

The advisor "says" – you read the real, legally binding contract. What do you think matters more? Pro-forma, usually no consequences, etc. – if the bank didn’t care, there wouldn’t be a clause. Since you see this renting out only as a vague option, you have no choice but to renegotiate or possibly bear the consequences imposed by the bank.