The demands of the prospective daughter-in-law are unreasonable. The property right of the house bought by the parents belongs to the parents, not even the son, not to mention the pre-marital property of the prospective daughter-in-law. My point is that the house bought by parents, regardless of the name of the son or the name of the prospective daughter-in-law, must be proved to be the property of the elderly in a clear way. For example, property can be notarized or conditionally given to sons and daughters-in-law. Of course, if the elderly pay part of the purchase price, or there are follow-up loans that need to be borne by their sons and daughters-in-law, it is necessary to prove the share of property rights between the elderly and their sons and daughters-in-law. There is no doubt that the house bought by parents belongs to the man's pre-marital property. What does it mean if the woman asks to add her name to the real estate license? Do you want the old man to give the house to the young couple for free as their property? So if there are other situations in the future, can the woman share it equally? There is no such unreasonable demand in the world. It is fair and reasonable that the property before marriage belongs to whom, and the wealth created during the life of married couples is the property of both husband and wife. If you get something for nothing, or think that the woman will suffer losses after marriage, the man needs to pay half of his property for compensation, which is a bit excessive in calculation and belongs to the infringement of the property of the elderly. As for how the son and daughter-in-law get married and how the couple are doing, don't take the house bought by your parents as a bargaining chip. In that case, I don't think their marriage will last. ?