منتجات
صقل من قبل
صقل من قبل
14th Anniversary Labubu Vinyl Face Figure Sealed Gift Box
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: August 2024Material: ABS. PVCHeight: Approx. 5 inches (12.7 cm)Celebrate 14 years of Labubu with this limited-edition Vinyl Face Figure. packaged in a premium sealed gift box. Featuring a unique glossy finish. commemorative packaging. and exclusive design...
₩848,000
₩354,000
Big into Energy Series - Happiness
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: April 25. 2025SIZE: Height(Excluding Hanging Loop): 17cm/6.69inchesMATERIAL: Shell: PVC / PolyesterStuffing: Polyester / Iron WireNot suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Big into Energy Series - Hope
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: April 25. 2025SIZE: Height(Excluding Hanging Loop): 17cm/6.69inchesMATERIAL: Shell: PVC / PolyesterStuffing: Polyester / Iron WireNot suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Big into Energy Series - Love
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: April 25. 2025SIZE: Height(Excluding Hanging Loop): 17cm/6.69inchesMATERIAL: Shell: PVC / PolyesterStuffing: Polyester / Iron WireNot suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Big into Energy Series - Loyalty
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: April 25. 2025SIZE: Height(Excluding Hanging Loop): 17cm/6.69inchesMATERIAL: Shell: PVC / PolyesterStuffing: Polyester / Iron WireNot suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Big into Energy Series - Luck
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: April 25. 2025SIZE: Height(Excluding Hanging Loop): 17cm/6.69inchesMATERIAL: Shell: PVC / PolyesterStuffing: Polyester / Iron WireNot suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Big into Energy Series - Secret Edition
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: April 25. 2025SIZE: Height(Excluding Hanging Loop): 17cm/6.69inchesMATERIAL: Shell: PVC / PolyesterStuffing: Polyester / Iron WireNot suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4...
₩204,000
₩85,000
Big into Energy Series - Serenity
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: April 25. 2025SIZE: Height(Excluding Hanging Loop): 17cm/6.69inchesMATERIAL: Shell: PVC / PolyesterStuffing: Polyester / Iron WireNot suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4...
₩136,000
₩57,000
CRYBABY Wild but Cutie Series - Vinyl Plush Pendant Blind Box
No reviews
Meet the wildest and cutest version of Crybaby!Each blind box hides a surprise character with an expressive vinyl face. soft plush details. and adorable animal features. This edition skips the tears and goes full playful — bold. fun. and irresistibly...
₩36,000
No reviews
₩475,000
₩198,000
-
DEEP PINK
-
PURPLE
-
WHITE
-
BLACK
-
PINK
- + 1
Custom Labubu - the Nine Tails
- DEEP PINK
No reviews
₩475,000
₩198,000
-
DEEP PINK
-
PURPLE
-
WHITE
-
BLACK
-
PINK
- + 1
Exciting Macaron - Chestnut Cocoa
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Chestnut Cocoa
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Chestnut Cocoa
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Chestnut Cocoa
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Green Grape
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Green Grape
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Green Grape
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Lychee Berry
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Sea Salt Coconut
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Sea Salt Coconut
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Sesame Bean
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Soymilk
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Soymilk
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Soymilk
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Soymilk
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Exciting Macaron - Toffee
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: October 27 2023Material: ABS/PVCHeight: 6.7 inchesThe whole set contains 6 non-repeating blind boxes.Not suitable for persons under 15.*Due to differences in measurement methods. the actual measurements may vary within a normal range of 0.4 - 1.2...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Happy Halloween Party Series-Sitting Pumpkin Vinyl Plush Pendant
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTRelease Date: September 13. 2024Material:– Shell: 52% PVC. 48% Polyester– Stuffing: 100% PolyesterHeight: 15 cm (5.9 inches) — not including hanging loop⚠️ Not suitable for persons under 15.Please note:– Measurements may vary slightly (±0.19 – 0.39 inches) due...
₩136,000
₩57,000
Labubu One Piece Series Figures Blind Box
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTTHE MONSTERS × One Piece Series – Blind Box FiguresUnite two fan-favorite universes—Labubu's The Monsters and One Piece—in this thrilling mystery collaboration! Each blind box contains one character from the Straw Hat Pirates reimagined with the bold. quirky...
₩204,000
₩85,000
Labubu One Piece Series Figures Blind Box
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTTHE MONSTERS × One Piece Series – Blind Box FiguresUnite two fan-favorite universes—Labubu's The Monsters and One Piece—in this thrilling mystery collaboration! Each blind box contains one character from the Straw Hat Pirates reimagined with the bold. quirky...
₩204,000
₩85,000
Labubu One Piece Series Figures Blind Box
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTTHE MONSTERS × One Piece Series – Blind Box FiguresUnite two fan-favorite universes—Labubu's The Monsters and One Piece—in this thrilling mystery collaboration! Each blind box contains one character from the Straw Hat Pirates reimagined with the bold. quirky...
₩204,000
₩85,000
Labubu One Piece Series Figures Blind Box
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTTHE MONSTERS × One Piece Series – Blind Box FiguresUnite two fan-favorite universes—Labubu's The Monsters and One Piece—in this thrilling mystery collaboration! Each blind box contains one character from the Straw Hat Pirates reimagined with the bold. quirky...
₩204,000
₩85,000
Labubu One Piece Series Figures Blind Box
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTTHE MONSTERS × One Piece Series – Blind Box FiguresUnite two fan-favorite universes—Labubu's The Monsters and One Piece—in this thrilling mystery collaboration! Each blind box contains one character from the Straw Hat Pirates reimagined with the bold. quirky...
₩204,000
₩85,000
Labubu One Piece Series Figures Blind Box
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTTHE MONSTERS × One Piece Series – Blind Box FiguresUnite two fan-favorite universes—Labubu's The Monsters and One Piece—in this thrilling mystery collaboration! Each blind box contains one character from the Straw Hat Pirates reimagined with the bold. quirky...
₩204,000
₩85,000
Labubu One Piece Series Figures Blind Box
No reviews
Designer: POP MARTTHE MONSTERS × One Piece Series – Blind Box FiguresUnite two fan-favorite universes—Labubu's The Monsters and One Piece—in this thrilling mystery collaboration! Each blind box contains one character from the Straw Hat Pirates reimagined with the bold. quirky...
₩204,000
₩85,000