The separate Obligation to pay the closing costs will also veiled, that only a single monthly fee is paid for the entire service life. “” In transparent effect, also, that the agreement on the one hand talking, that the repayment of costs not in the form of a transfer of the costs with the insurance premiums “achievements, this is reduced by the wording elsewhere but” exactly is regulated. A decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Landgericht Rostock comes to a different conclusion (judgment of 10.08.2012, 1 S 315/10; also Landgericht Bonn, judgment of the 01.12.2011 8s 174/11; Landgericht Berlin, judgment of the 22.11.2011 – 7 O 286/10; Amtsgericht Braunschweig judgment of April 13, 2010 – 116 C 4493/09 and District Court of Cologne, judgment of the 03.11.2010 – 118 C-186/10). For the Court, the cost equalization agreement no circumvention of 169 5 represents VVG S. 2. The regulation concerns immediately in the event that the insurer and the policyholder have agreed to the acquisition costs with the insurance premiums to be paid in the future charge (known as gross policy). The rule find but no application if the parties not to charge the closing costs, but in an individual contract rules (so-called net police).

The Court here refers to the grounds of the law (Federal printed matter 16/3945, page 53). The regulation does not exclude that a separate agreement on the payment of final expenses and no offsetting the acquisition costs with premium payments will be taken. A separate agreement is made and not be charged, full transparency with regard to the amount of alone this was manufactured. Have the parties agreed upon such as, that acquisition costs are separately and paid without clearing the surrender value would be on the one hand correspondingly higher. On the other hand, would be the obligation to pay the closing costs of separate agreement regardless of whether the insurance contract is terminated.