De doos bleef onbeschadigd; het bedrag werd terugbetaald.

Bleef is the past tense of blijven, which means to remain / to stay.

So:

• De doos was onbeschadigd = The box was undamaged
• De doos bleef onbeschadigd = The box remained undamaged

Using bleef emphasizes that the box stayed in that condition, possibly despite transport, handling, or some risk of damage. It suggests a result over time, not just a simple description.

Onbeschadigd means undamaged.

It is built from:

• beschadigd = damaged
• on- = un-, not-

So onbeschadigd literally means not damaged.

This on- prefix is common in Dutch:

• mogelijk = possible
• onmogelijk = impossible
• tevreden = satisfied
• ontevreden = dissatisfied

Because this is a normal simple past tense sentence.

• blijven = infinitive
• bleef = simple past singular

So De doos bleef onbeschadigd is simply The box remained undamaged.

You would use gebleven in a perfect tense:

• De doos is onbeschadigd gebleven = The box has remained / stayed undamaged

So:

• bleef = simple past
• is gebleven = present perfect

Because here onbeschadigd is used as a predicative adjective, after a verb like blijven.

Compare:

• de onbeschadigde doos = the undamaged box
  
  • here the adjective comes before the noun, so it usually takes -e
• de doos bleef onbeschadigd = the box remained undamaged
  
  • here the adjective comes after the verb, so it normally has no -e

This is a very common Dutch pattern:

• een rode auto
• de auto is rood

The semicolon links two closely related independent clauses:

• De doos bleef onbeschadigd
• het bedrag werd terugbetaald

Each part could stand as its own sentence, but the semicolon shows they belong together in meaning. It is a bit more formal or written in style than simply using a period.

You could also write:

• De doos bleef onbeschadigd. Het bedrag werd terugbetaald.
• De doos bleef onbeschadigd, en het bedrag werd terugbetaald.

The semicolon is not required, but it is perfectly natural in formal written Dutch.

Because Dutch nouns have two grammatical article types:

• de
• het

You just have to learn which article belongs with each noun.

Here:

• de doos = the box
• het bedrag = the amount

There is not always a logical reason visible to the learner; article gender/class is often just part of the noun you memorize.

A useful note:

• most plural nouns take de
• diminutives always take het

But bedrag is singular and simply happens to be a het-word.

Yes. Werd terugbetaald is the simple past passive.

It is formed with:

• werd = past tense of worden
• terugbetaald = past participle of terugbetalen (to repay / refund)

So:

• Het bedrijf betaalde het bedrag terug = The company paid the amount back
  
  • active
• Het bedrag werd terugbetaald = The amount was refunded / paid back
  
  • passive

The passive is used when the action matters more than who did it, or when the agent is unknown or unimportant.

Because in Dutch subordinate verb structures and passive constructions, the past participle often comes at the end of the clause.

Here the structure is:

• het bedrag = subject
• werd = auxiliary/passive verb
• terugbetaald = past participle

So:

• Het bedrag werd terugbetaald.

This is very normal Dutch word order.

Compare:

• De factuur werd gisteren betaald.
• Het pakket is al verzonden.

In both cases, the participle comes near or at the end.

Yes, terugbetalen is written as one word in the infinitive. It is a separable verb:

• terugbetalen = to pay back / refund

In main clauses, the prefix often separates:

• Ik betaal het bedrag terug.

But in infinitives and participles, it is usually written together:

• terugbetalen
• terugbetaald

So in your sentence:

• werd terugbetaald

That is exactly what you would expect from the past participle of a separable verb.

Yes, but the meaning in time changes.

• Het bedrag werd terugbetaald = The amount was refunded
  
  • simple past, tells you this happened in the past
• Het bedrag is terugbetaald = The amount has been refunded / is refunded
  
  • present perfect or result-focused passive, depending on context

In many contexts, both are possible, but werd terugbetaald sounds more like straightforward past narration, while is terugbetaald often focuses more on the completed result.

Bedrag usually means amount or sum (of money).

In this sentence, it most naturally refers to a monetary amount, so translations like these work:

• the amount
• the sum
• the amount of money

It does not usually mean money in the general sense. For general money, Dutch uses geld.

So:

• het bedrag = the amount / the sum
• het geld = the money

It is fairly neutral-to-formal, especially because of the semicolon and the passive werd terugbetaald.

It sounds natural in contexts like:

• customer service
• shipping reports
• insurance claims
• written correspondence

A more conversational version might be:

• De doos was niet beschadigd en het bedrag is terugbetaald.

But the original sentence is perfectly good Dutch, especially in written or administrative style.