小編看到台灣 110年度台上字第1582號判決，判決要旨： 契約當事人約定於債務人不履行債務時，所應支付之違約金，除約定其為懲罰性之違約金外，概屬於賠償總額預定性之違約金，以免對債務人造成不利。 (法源整理)
話說小編還是有在關注台灣的法律的，只是台灣的律師太多，大部分的人都會以律師的話為聖旨，小編不是律師只是小小法務從業人員不敢造次，不要隨便嘴。但小編對越南的法學有一定程度的了解。看到這個違約罰款約定的見解，馬上來看看越南的….
之前小編寫過【參考文章：【越南民商】違反合約之違約罰款上限整理】，今天要繼續來講違約罰款及損害賠償約定。
參照越南民法第418條規定及第419條規定，違約處罰是指合約中各方之間約定由違約方應向被違約方支付違約金。違約的金額也可以依照各方協商，但如果相關法令有其他規定除外(就是小編之前寫的上限)
但違約處罰與損害賠償不同的概念，合約中可以只須接受違約處罰不須賠償，也可以約定兩個都要，如果違約了需要接受違約處罰也需要接受損害賠償。
然而損害賠償可以按照合約可期待的利益進行賠償，受損方也可以要求違約方支付因為未完成合約義務所產生的費用。例如你找人蓋房子，建商不蓋了，你找其他人來蓋的費用。
法院也可以依據受損害一方的要求，強制違約方進行精神損失賠償，而賠償的額度法院可以自行決定。
總得來說跟台灣法令賠償與違約金的解釋是差不多的，法院會衡量受損方實際所受的積極損害及消極損害，去決定約定的賠償或違約金是否過高。
裁判字號：110年度台上字第1582號
判決要旨：
契約當事人約定於債務人不履行債務時，所應支付之違約金，除約定其為懲罰性之違約金外，概屬於賠償總額預定性之違約金，以免對債務人造成不利。
要 旨：契約當事人以確保債務之履行為目的，約定於債務人不履行債務或不為適
當之履行時，所應支付之違約金，除契約約定其為懲罰性之違約金外，概
屬於賠償總額預定性之違約金，以免對債務人造成不利。而約定之違約金
過高者，法院得減至相當之數額。至於是否相當，即須依一般客觀事實，
社會經濟狀況及當事人所受損害情形及債務人如能依約履行時，債權人可
享受之一切利益為斟酌之標準。
91/2015/QH13 越南民法 CIVIL CODE
Article 418. Agreements on fines against violations
1. Agreements on fines for violations are reached by the parties to a contract which requires the violating party to pay a fine to the aggrieved party.
2. The fine levels shall be agreed among the parties, unless otherwise prescribed by relevant laws.
3. The parties may reach an agreement that the violating party has to pay only a fine for violations and is not liable to any compensation for damage, or has to pay both a fine for violations and a compensation for damage.
In case the parties have an agreement on fines against violation which does not specify that the violating party has to pay both a find for violations and a compensation for damage, then the violating party has to pay only the fine for violations.
Article 419. The damage to be compensated for breach of contract
1. The damage to be compensated for breach of contractual obligations is determined in accordance with Clause 2 of this Article, Article 13 and Article 360 of this Code.
2. The obligee may demand compensation for damage to its supposed benefits that will be enjoyed by the contract offer. The obligee also may request the obligor to pay the costs incurred due to its non-fulfillment of contractual obligations which do not overlap with the compensation for damages for contractual benefits.
3. At the request of the obligee, a court may compel the obligor to pay spiritual damages to the obligee. The damages shall be decided by the court according to contents of case.
